gc070922
12-19 05:15 PM
Husband + Wife - 1 Application
Wife - Seperate Appln. ( Will do follow to join incase by chance the first one gets stuck
I'm thinking of doing the samething. Have you received receipts of both sets of applications? How about finger prints? Did you mention the earlier one in the later one, for the question "have you applied before" on the i485?
Thanks in advance.
Wife - Seperate Appln. ( Will do follow to join incase by chance the first one gets stuck
I'm thinking of doing the samething. Have you received receipts of both sets of applications? How about finger prints? Did you mention the earlier one in the later one, for the question "have you applied before" on the i485?
Thanks in advance.
wallpaper Tupac Shakur.
ash0210
05-15 09:09 AM
Due to PD movement, to track exact status of how many guys are "already in Que" and how many guys want to "join" the Que, we needs to have two more options e.g. -
- India PD current & I-485 already filed (guys already in Que)
- India PD current & I-485 NOT filed (guys want to Join the Que)
This will help to know how many guys are in que, how many VISA's are available (as per USCIS) and then we will have some "guess" work on how PD will move ahaead in upcoming months!!
This is a EB3 - General Poll across all countries
- India PD current & I-485 already filed (guys already in Que)
- India PD current & I-485 NOT filed (guys want to Join the Que)
This will help to know how many guys are in que, how many VISA's are available (as per USCIS) and then we will have some "guess" work on how PD will move ahaead in upcoming months!!
This is a EB3 - General Poll across all countries
gceb3holder
02-27 06:52 AM
I have received my GC on January 28th. My company filled the following with USCIS:
I140 was filled on Nov. 21 2007 and Approved on Jan 24th 2008
I485 was filled on Nov. 21 2007 and Approved on Jan 20th 2008
Now... some people say to me to wait 180 days to quit my current job (which is paying me half of what I should be earning as a GC holder), some people say it is okay to leave at anytime....
So, I don't know what to do, I pretend to become a citzen in 5 years also, and not sure if this will count bad towards that.
I have some reasons to leave: sallary is low (they will not negociate more), wife is pregnant and I am getting a mortgage.
Please advice.
I140 was filled on Nov. 21 2007 and Approved on Jan 24th 2008
I485 was filled on Nov. 21 2007 and Approved on Jan 20th 2008
Now... some people say to me to wait 180 days to quit my current job (which is paying me half of what I should be earning as a GC holder), some people say it is okay to leave at anytime....
So, I don't know what to do, I pretend to become a citzen in 5 years also, and not sure if this will count bad towards that.
I have some reasons to leave: sallary is low (they will not negociate more), wife is pregnant and I am getting a mortgage.
Please advice.
2011 pictures slain rapper Tupac Shakur. tupac shakur funeral.
pappu
12-31 01:35 PM
My case is not complicated (i believe) but transfered from Texas to Vermont.
May be not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload.
My case is not complicated (i believe) but transfered from Texas to Vermont.
(Hope not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload. )
[QUOTE or has multiple applications?
Family of three.
It maybe a case of load balancing between service centers, but sending to Vermont is odd after they started bi-specialization. Generally I have heard between Texas or Nebraska and in some cases to Local offices. Did the transfer notice say... we are transferring to speed up your case....?
May be not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload.
My case is not complicated (i believe) but transfered from Texas to Vermont.
(Hope not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload. )
[QUOTE or has multiple applications?
Family of three.
It maybe a case of load balancing between service centers, but sending to Vermont is odd after they started bi-specialization. Generally I have heard between Texas or Nebraska and in some cases to Local offices. Did the transfer notice say... we are transferring to speed up your case....?
more...
jliechty
May 18th, 2005, 03:58 PM
It's very simple, if you think about it... The first photo (showing dust) was taken at f/32, and the second, lacking dust, at f/2.8. A smaller aperture will not only result in a great DOF in front of the lens, but also behind it; hence, the dust will be blurred and mostly invisible at large apertures because it is slightly in front of the sensor (on the AA / IR blocking filter thing), but will pop out with tremendous clarity at small ones.
ramus
06-03 02:51 PM
If you don't like web-fax then you can make phone call or send email with your message in it. Also please contribute to IV.
What do you think?
I didnot like the webfax as it doesnot cover wishes of many people like me. People who have approved Perm should be allowed to file I140 and I1485 under old system even if Point Based system becomes law.
engineer
What do you think?
I didnot like the webfax as it doesnot cover wishes of many people like me. People who have approved Perm should be allowed to file I140 and I1485 under old system even if Point Based system becomes law.
engineer
more...
krishna.ahd
02-23 04:46 PM
Can H4 dependent join college without changing his/her visa status to students visa.
Also what are the implecations for this on the green card process if one is waiting for the PD to be current.
Now the H1 and H4 are decoupled against 6 years limit , one can afford to remain in H4 , people used to get F1 (while on college) only to avoid 6 years limit on H4 , but there are other disadvantages to remain on H4
I dont think there should be any impact on GC process, consult your attorney
Also what are the implecations for this on the green card process if one is waiting for the PD to be current.
Now the H1 and H4 are decoupled against 6 years limit , one can afford to remain in H4 , people used to get F1 (while on college) only to avoid 6 years limit on H4 , but there are other disadvantages to remain on H4
I dont think there should be any impact on GC process, consult your attorney
2010 hair Proof#39;s funeral was attented tupac shakur funeral pictures.
satyasaich
06-29 09:48 AM
My friend
What else we lose if we stand up the plate to express some legitimate concerns?
Most of the members of this forum (and so many more) have already lost the prime time of their lives because we just followed the path of playing by rules.
Unless one has some compelling personal reasons, i do not see any thing wrong to raise the voice
---
Yes, once "They" identify "You" the consequences can be severe.:rolleyes:
Beware! Big Brother is watching.
That is the reason I didn't support the US soccer team at World Cup.
US team is so unpopular in Europe :p Given a choice between popularity and doing the right thing, I guess popularity always wins :D
Hilarious! Couldn't resist :o
What else we lose if we stand up the plate to express some legitimate concerns?
Most of the members of this forum (and so many more) have already lost the prime time of their lives because we just followed the path of playing by rules.
Unless one has some compelling personal reasons, i do not see any thing wrong to raise the voice
---
Yes, once "They" identify "You" the consequences can be severe.:rolleyes:
Beware! Big Brother is watching.
That is the reason I didn't support the US soccer team at World Cup.
US team is so unpopular in Europe :p Given a choice between popularity and doing the right thing, I guess popularity always wins :D
Hilarious! Couldn't resist :o
more...
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
hair dresses Pardon the best tupac shakur tupac shakur funeral.
humdesi
03-13 01:23 AM
There is a add on Sulekha ...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/add
transitive verb
1: to join or unite so as to bring about an increase or improvement <adds 60 acres to his land> <wine adds a creative touch to cooking>
2: to say further : append
3: to combine (numbers) into an equivalent simple quantity or number
4: to include as a member of a group <don't forget to add me in>
intransitive verb
1 a: to perform addition b: to come together or unite by addition
2 a: to serve as an addition <the movie will add to his fame> b: to make an addition <added to her savings>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/AD
Main Entry: 1ad
Pronunciation: \ˈad\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Date: 1841
1 : advertisement 2
2 : advertising
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/add
transitive verb
1: to join or unite so as to bring about an increase or improvement <adds 60 acres to his land> <wine adds a creative touch to cooking>
2: to say further : append
3: to combine (numbers) into an equivalent simple quantity or number
4: to include as a member of a group <don't forget to add me in>
intransitive verb
1 a: to perform addition b: to come together or unite by addition
2 a: to serve as an addition <the movie will add to his fame> b: to make an addition <added to her savings>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/AD
Main Entry: 1ad
Pronunciation: \ˈad\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Date: 1841
1 : advertisement 2
2 : advertising
more...
jsb
11-28 01:19 PM
Fee : $305.00
Applied on line, printed the form.
Attached the following and sent them to USCIS
1) 485 - copy.
2) Old APs 2 - Copies.
3) Cover letter explaining that I need to visit my parents as they are old.
4) DL - Copy.
5) Photos : 2 (write A# and name back of them) (I forgot to send the photos with the application)
I forgot to attach the photos and got RFE, sent photos and approved yesterday. Waiting for the physical copy.
Item (3) the cover letter, is not required, but there is no harm to include one. Besides that include photo page of your passport (to confirm you are who you say you are) help speed up the process.
Applied on line, printed the form.
Attached the following and sent them to USCIS
1) 485 - copy.
2) Old APs 2 - Copies.
3) Cover letter explaining that I need to visit my parents as they are old.
4) DL - Copy.
5) Photos : 2 (write A# and name back of them) (I forgot to send the photos with the application)
I forgot to attach the photos and got RFE, sent photos and approved yesterday. Waiting for the physical copy.
Item (3) the cover letter, is not required, but there is no harm to include one. Besides that include photo page of your passport (to confirm you are who you say you are) help speed up the process.
hot hair quot;Tupac Shakur and mom Afeni tupac shakur funeral. Tupac Shakur vs.
GCMan007
03-12 11:50 AM
I have updated my profile..IV has been a source of strength in my Journey..i wish good things happen at USCIS and hard working legal immigrants like us get the GC quickly
more...
house 2010 Tupac Shakur medley tupac shakur funeral. the legend: Tupac Shakur!
jonty_11
07-16 07:11 PM
Bluez,
How are you planning to get PCC from consulate. I live in colorado and going to SFO would be very expensive as well as time consuming. Do you know how much time consulate would take through mail? I am skeptical whether they would send my passport back by Aug 15 or not as I am planing to leave on Aug 15.
seee SFO website...they issue PCC is upto 45 days, I think...
cgisf.org - even better call them
How are you planning to get PCC from consulate. I live in colorado and going to SFO would be very expensive as well as time consuming. Do you know how much time consulate would take through mail? I am skeptical whether they would send my passport back by Aug 15 or not as I am planing to leave on Aug 15.
seee SFO website...they issue PCC is upto 45 days, I think...
cgisf.org - even better call them
tattoo 2010 Tupac Shakur feat Notorious tupac shakur funeral.
Anders �stberg
June 18th, 2005, 11:18 PM
On my monitor it looks too grey and washed out... I guess what this shows is there is a big difference in monitors, the printed product is perhaps what counts in the end. I've been thinking of replacing my monitors, they are getting old and I can't get them quite right according to the Eye One calibration software.
more...
pictures Biography of Tupac Shakur
fide_champ
03-14 02:10 PM
hello,
My mother has 10 yr multiple entry visa. She is planning to travel from Bangalore India to USA through Lufthansa Airways. She has a stop over at Frankfurt airport for about 3 hrs. Does she need to get a transit visa for that. Any recent experience or suggestion? Thanks.
If you have a valid US/Canada visa stamp, then you do not need a transit visa for Germany.
My mother has 10 yr multiple entry visa. She is planning to travel from Bangalore India to USA through Lufthansa Airways. She has a stop over at Frankfurt airport for about 3 hrs. Does she need to get a transit visa for that. Any recent experience or suggestion? Thanks.
If you have a valid US/Canada visa stamp, then you do not need a transit visa for Germany.
dresses releases by Tupac Shakur.
VDaminator
06-05 04:29 PM
Aright here ya go
more...
makeup 2pac shakur osama bin laden
raysaikat
10-10 11:37 AM
Thank you very much for all your support.
Do I need to inform him before I leave ? because he is with his relative place. What is the process for that ?
This is a domestic problem, not an immigration one. Legally, a dependent is assumed to _depend_ on you. Anyway, just give him a call/send an email/letter informing that his stay would be illegal after you leave.
If I leave without informing him, then what he can do on me ?
Legally, nothing.
Do I need to inform him before I leave ? because he is with his relative place. What is the process for that ?
This is a domestic problem, not an immigration one. Legally, a dependent is assumed to _depend_ on you. Anyway, just give him a call/send an email/letter informing that his stay would be illegal after you leave.
If I leave without informing him, then what he can do on me ?
Legally, nothing.
girlfriend makeup Tupac Shakur; he himself tupac shakur funeral. with Tupac Shakur,
bhasky25
10-11 02:31 PM
I do not wish to refile my GC.. I just wanted to know if I can get my HB1 renewed even after the underlying 140 is revoked...
hairstyles from the late Tupac Shakur
tempgc
09-24 01:27 PM
The green side of the story is, USCIS will try to attract new applications. For this DOS need to move the dates further.
OR
Introduce a new process of filing 485 for administrative processing (which is in talks) even before your PD is current as per visa bulletin as soon as 140 approval.
I see this good for people waiting to file for 485.
OR
Introduce a new process of filing 485 for administrative processing (which is in talks) even before your PD is current as per visa bulletin as soon as 140 approval.
I see this good for people waiting to file for 485.
pbuckeye
06-25 08:02 AM
Hi Gurus / Attorneys,
I have come to this country in 1999 and have worked for company A and after 7 years , I transferred my H1B to company B based company A's approved I-140 in 2007 before July fiasco. Hence missed the July 2007.
Now I have been working for company B for the last 3 years and got my I-140 approved again and applied for H1B extension. Received RFE asking for client letter.
Client was reluctant to give the letter and my H1B got denied.
Asking client for the letter : Client says that they can't give a letter, it's against their company policy :confused:
My Options :
1. MTR : I am not sure if I can get the client letter to open MTR and also file a new H1 in parallel.
2. Go back to my home country : My employer said that they will apply for a new H1B for consular processing (does this come under quota ?)
I own a home here and now leaving everything in a week is making me worried.
Also my priority date is Nov 2002 under EB3 and I am not sure how I can pursue this from my home country, if needed.
Thanks in advance for all your help and suggestions !!
Can you try to get the MSA/SOW/PO between the client and vendor for the MTR (or client and your employer)? Sometimes the SOW reads almost like a client letter (with name, job duties, client supervisor name, signed by IT and legal department at client site).
Another option could be to get an email from the client stating that they cannot provide a letter because of company policy AND/OR get a letter from the vendor stating the same and provide the contact information of the supervisor at client location.
I have come to this country in 1999 and have worked for company A and after 7 years , I transferred my H1B to company B based company A's approved I-140 in 2007 before July fiasco. Hence missed the July 2007.
Now I have been working for company B for the last 3 years and got my I-140 approved again and applied for H1B extension. Received RFE asking for client letter.
Client was reluctant to give the letter and my H1B got denied.
Asking client for the letter : Client says that they can't give a letter, it's against their company policy :confused:
My Options :
1. MTR : I am not sure if I can get the client letter to open MTR and also file a new H1 in parallel.
2. Go back to my home country : My employer said that they will apply for a new H1B for consular processing (does this come under quota ?)
I own a home here and now leaving everything in a week is making me worried.
Also my priority date is Nov 2002 under EB3 and I am not sure how I can pursue this from my home country, if needed.
Thanks in advance for all your help and suggestions !!
Can you try to get the MSA/SOW/PO between the client and vendor for the MTR (or client and your employer)? Sometimes the SOW reads almost like a client letter (with name, job duties, client supervisor name, signed by IT and legal department at client site).
Another option could be to get an email from the client stating that they cannot provide a letter because of company policy AND/OR get a letter from the vendor stating the same and provide the contact information of the supervisor at client location.
soni7007
09-15 12:13 PM
I am glad that some of us are positive moving fwd with this idea. There are some other threads talking about other action items (write letters etc.). I think the first thing we need to do is to join hands and then decide a game plan. We need to concentrate the total energy at one point. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment