IV_Friend
03-29 04:39 PM
Dear Attorney,
My Brother is working Employer "X" on H1B.
His employer started his Green Card Processing in 2007.
His Labor (PD 2007) and 140 are approved by 2008.
Because of some reasons he had leave the employer "X" and Join Employer "Y".
Employer Y, willing to start green card process.
Can my brother use prior Priority Date?
Please advice. I Appreciate your help.
My Brother is working Employer "X" on H1B.
His employer started his Green Card Processing in 2007.
His Labor (PD 2007) and 140 are approved by 2008.
Because of some reasons he had leave the employer "X" and Join Employer "Y".
Employer Y, willing to start green card process.
Can my brother use prior Priority Date?
Please advice. I Appreciate your help.
wallpaper Download This Wallpaper
asdfgh
10-15 03:03 PM
Lawyers havent received notice yet either...does CSC only enter receipt dates or do they process EAD, AP etc. as well prior to transfers?
as far as i know CSC sending the transfer notices after issuing the receipts. Did u check with ur lawyer for receipts? .
as far as i know CSC sending the transfer notices after issuing the receipts. Did u check with ur lawyer for receipts? .
ita
01-15 07:13 PM
So If we find a job where they are willing to do H1 then will it be like getting the H1 for first time? ...like part of the yearly quota where H1 starts from October or will it be like just file for H1 and start working with the receipt in hand.
Also is there is difference between new H1 b and transferring H1B , from the perspective of the company(that's willing to do H1) . I mean , will the companies hesitate if they have to file for new H1 as against when they have to file for transfer ?
Thank you.
Once you switch jobs using AC 21, you are no longer on H1-B (even though you still have H1-b date that has not expired).
Your next H1-B will be considered a new H1-B and not a transfer.
You will be able to use remaining H1-B time. There is no difference whether the employer revokes or not revoke your H1 as you are no longer on H1-B.
Also is there is difference between new H1 b and transferring H1B , from the perspective of the company(that's willing to do H1) . I mean , will the companies hesitate if they have to file for new H1 as against when they have to file for transfer ?
Thank you.
Once you switch jobs using AC 21, you are no longer on H1-B (even though you still have H1-b date that has not expired).
Your next H1-B will be considered a new H1-B and not a transfer.
You will be able to use remaining H1-B time. There is no difference whether the employer revokes or not revoke your H1 as you are no longer on H1-B.
2011 New York Yankees Logo
lvaka
05-19 01:19 PM
Dear Desertfox: Can you please advice me on the below 2 questions while efile (756 - EAD)
1. Q 14 - Manner of Last Entry into the U.S.:
(Visitor, Student, etc.) - Which option has to select from List of Values. ( DA: ADVANCE PAROLE (DISTRICT AUTH)?.
2. What do I mention for this : For (c)(9) eligibility status only
Please select the location where your
I-485 is pending:
Please provide information concerning your eligibility status:
Thanks,
Hi,
1. I was been advised by my Lawyer to pick "PAR -Parolee" if we have used our AP. But if we have last entered using H1 B then we have to pick "H1 B"
2. We have to provide the following in this field
485 receipt number - xxxxxxx
140 receipt number - xxxxxxx (This is optional)
I would put the first line with the 485 receipt number
1. Q 14 - Manner of Last Entry into the U.S.:
(Visitor, Student, etc.) - Which option has to select from List of Values. ( DA: ADVANCE PAROLE (DISTRICT AUTH)?.
2. What do I mention for this : For (c)(9) eligibility status only
Please select the location where your
I-485 is pending:
Please provide information concerning your eligibility status:
Thanks,
Hi,
1. I was been advised by my Lawyer to pick "PAR -Parolee" if we have used our AP. But if we have last entered using H1 B then we have to pick "H1 B"
2. We have to provide the following in this field
485 receipt number - xxxxxxx
140 receipt number - xxxxxxx (This is optional)
I would put the first line with the 485 receipt number
more...
wandmaker
11-30 05:38 PM
I don't think USCIS will ask any questions if you are applying for a new H1 from a different company. You might have a problem if you are asking for a transfer as you have not uesd the current H1. Before coming to US, I had 3 H1Bs done by 3 different companies(in the span of 3 years). I used the last one and I had no problem. Actually I had the first H1 stamped and never used it. When I went for the 2nd stamping(before actually coming to US), they just cancelled the first one on my passport. Again, this was between 97 and 99, if things have changed now, I have no idea. I still did not get my GC either (10th year on H1B) so I don't know if that is going to be an issue in future.
Yes, it is still true.
Yes, it is still true.
greencardfever
12-11 01:37 PM
Is it 6 months for both, EAD and AP or just EAD? If it's just EAD, then how soon can I renew my AP?
more...
ita
01-15 06:04 PM
I called but I got the immigration subcommittee's VM. I left a message with my name and the reason I was calling.
2010 Check out our guide! New
nozerd
09-06 01:42 PM
Can H1 visa stamp be used for travel convenience ?
I am EB3 India with PD of August 2001. I 140 approved but cant file I 485 due to retro. I have sent in my application for 8th -10th yr H1 extension. I am already Canadian PR landed in April 2005 so basically need to do something in early 2008 if I still need to hold on to my Canadian PR. I have worked for same firm since last 7 + yrs and they are quite cooperative within limits.
I wanted to know if I can work for my company's Canadian operations and still hold H1 visa and travel on that H1 visa. Please note that I will be on Canadian payroll. Is this legal ? Is it ok for the company to keep extending my H1 ? I know they can keep my Green card case alive but what about H1 ?
Is it ok to stay outside US and get paid outside US and still use H1 visa to travel ?
I am EB3 India with PD of August 2001. I 140 approved but cant file I 485 due to retro. I have sent in my application for 8th -10th yr H1 extension. I am already Canadian PR landed in April 2005 so basically need to do something in early 2008 if I still need to hold on to my Canadian PR. I have worked for same firm since last 7 + yrs and they are quite cooperative within limits.
I wanted to know if I can work for my company's Canadian operations and still hold H1 visa and travel on that H1 visa. Please note that I will be on Canadian payroll. Is this legal ? Is it ok for the company to keep extending my H1 ? I know they can keep my Green card case alive but what about H1 ?
Is it ok to stay outside US and get paid outside US and still use H1 visa to travel ?
more...
ramus
07-05 10:44 PM
I am not sure who started this flower idea, who ever it is- I am not sure if this idea will even work.. But if you think it will work then work hard on getting media's attention.... I am not sure if flower will even go through security..
Let me know if you get any reporter who will cover this story...
Let me know if you get any reporter who will cover this story...
hair new york mets 2011 wallpaper.
speddi
10-05 10:43 AM
Hi,
I am a July 2nd filer and I got my receipt notices, EADs and completed the FP too. I didnt get the AP yet but my wife's AP shows as approved. When I talked to an IO couple of days ago, she said my AP is approved but they didnt update the website. I called USCIS Customer Service today 3 to 4 (it seems they keep track of it) times and each gave me a different information. Sometimes they said they have Aug 17th as the receipt date but my receipt date is July 2nd(on the RN) and Aug 20th is the ND. So, I dont know what this Aug 17th date is and they say that is what they have in their systems as received date and I am still in the processing time. I am confused. According to my attorney, my wife's AP shudnt have been approved without my AP getting approved since I am the primary applicant.
Do I need to worry or just wait some more days? I am mainly worried that they have the wrong date as receipt date in their system and it might affect on future processing.
Thank you for any kind of input.
I am a July 2nd filer and I got my receipt notices, EADs and completed the FP too. I didnt get the AP yet but my wife's AP shows as approved. When I talked to an IO couple of days ago, she said my AP is approved but they didnt update the website. I called USCIS Customer Service today 3 to 4 (it seems they keep track of it) times and each gave me a different information. Sometimes they said they have Aug 17th as the receipt date but my receipt date is July 2nd(on the RN) and Aug 20th is the ND. So, I dont know what this Aug 17th date is and they say that is what they have in their systems as received date and I am still in the processing time. I am confused. According to my attorney, my wife's AP shudnt have been approved without my AP getting approved since I am the primary applicant.
Do I need to worry or just wait some more days? I am mainly worried that they have the wrong date as receipt date in their system and it might affect on future processing.
Thank you for any kind of input.
more...
Anders �stberg
July 15th, 2004, 06:55 PM
I can't stop thinking about how the picture would have looked with the mother bird in focus and the young OOF... it didn't occur to me at the time but it would have been very cool to try to preset focus for the approaching bird... I hope they are still there tomorrow...
hot new york yankees wallpaper
bigboy007
10-11 05:01 PM
Thanks for replying... Appreciate it ....
I believe the 180 days starts from the day of 485 notice date and not 140 approval. I had confirmed this with my attorney (both my personal one and the companies )before making the shift and I had and RFE on my 485 in June 09 and nothing after that. I would assume that USCIS was happy with my response and the case might have been pre-adjudicated.
As per Ron, one cannot apply for H1B renewals based on revoked 140's. I wanted to see if anyone here has done it successfully. I will check with my attorney as well as my companies attorney.
180 days is from when 485 filed as per yates memo... Check with attorney and you should be fine I dont want to draw conclusions here though. You may need to switch to AC21 aka use the EAD.. again I am not the lawyer here just coughing up what i know. H1B may be renewed if you have any of 6 years left. Why does he need to start entire GC process for just renewing H1B i dont understand.
I believe the 180 days starts from the day of 485 notice date and not 140 approval. I had confirmed this with my attorney (both my personal one and the companies )before making the shift and I had and RFE on my 485 in June 09 and nothing after that. I would assume that USCIS was happy with my response and the case might have been pre-adjudicated.
As per Ron, one cannot apply for H1B renewals based on revoked 140's. I wanted to see if anyone here has done it successfully. I will check with my attorney as well as my companies attorney.
180 days is from when 485 filed as per yates memo... Check with attorney and you should be fine I dont want to draw conclusions here though. You may need to switch to AC21 aka use the EAD.. again I am not the lawyer here just coughing up what i know. H1B may be renewed if you have any of 6 years left. Why does he need to start entire GC process for just renewing H1B i dont understand.
more...
house new york yankees wallpaper
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
tattoo New York Yankees iPhone
rjgleason
June 4th, 2004, 02:26 PM
I hope you don't mind but with about 20 minutes in photoshop...
:D
Great!!!
:D
Great!!!
more...
pictures yankees wallpaper 2011
arc
08-03 05:29 PM
When I open this post the AD on the top of the page said "zero calorie noodles" ha ha I could not resist I had to write a few lines...
Dude - Life is too short, eat drink and be merry :p when you become 80 - even if you have 6 peck no one is going to want to look at you :D
(do some workout like fun sports (Gym is for the dedicated ones) to stay active)
Dude - Life is too short, eat drink and be merry :p when you become 80 - even if you have 6 peck no one is going to want to look at you :D
(do some workout like fun sports (Gym is for the dedicated ones) to stay active)
dresses new york yankees wallpaper
rsdang
07-23 10:44 AM
I am a July filer as well and have a ton of friends in same boat... This is the first I heard of it.
more...
makeup new york yankees logo
a_yaja
01-06 10:30 AM
I will be using AP first time. What documentation do we need to enter (other than passport and un-expired AP)? I will be visiting India for about 1 month? Is there any limitation as to for how long you can leave the country? I got 2 copies of AP. We just need "one" right?
Also while leaving which I-94 should we surrender? The one which I got when I entered last time - a couple of years ago, or the one which I received with last H1b renewal documentation. Right now I am not using H1b. I am "on" EAD.
Please share your experiences.
Thanks in advance!
You need both copies of the AP. The IO will keep one copy and stamp the other one and return it. When I got back to the USA in December 2008, my POE was Miami. My lawyer had told me to take both copies of the AP with me.
When I was in the Secondary room, there was another person who had only one copy of the AP. The IO asked him for the other copy. The dude told the IO that he had only one copy and the lawyer had told him that one copy is enough (you could see that he was nervous). The IO sarcastically told him to change his lawyer. The dude then said that he was not planning on traveling anytime before the expiry of the AP and said that the IO could keep the copy he had submitted. The IO again wryly told him that things don't work that way. He told the dude to take a seat and he wold see what he could do (the IO was actually polite all the time to this dude - even thought he sounded sarcastic at times - especially when he said "I would not waste any more money on this lawyer"). To make a long story short, I saw him get his stamped AP back and we left the room at around the same time).
My advise to you is - take both the copies - you will not regret it.
Also while leaving which I-94 should we surrender? The one which I got when I entered last time - a couple of years ago, or the one which I received with last H1b renewal documentation. Right now I am not using H1b. I am "on" EAD.
Please share your experiences.
Thanks in advance!
You need both copies of the AP. The IO will keep one copy and stamp the other one and return it. When I got back to the USA in December 2008, my POE was Miami. My lawyer had told me to take both copies of the AP with me.
When I was in the Secondary room, there was another person who had only one copy of the AP. The IO asked him for the other copy. The dude told the IO that he had only one copy and the lawyer had told him that one copy is enough (you could see that he was nervous). The IO sarcastically told him to change his lawyer. The dude then said that he was not planning on traveling anytime before the expiry of the AP and said that the IO could keep the copy he had submitted. The IO again wryly told him that things don't work that way. He told the dude to take a seat and he wold see what he could do (the IO was actually polite all the time to this dude - even thought he sounded sarcastic at times - especially when he said "I would not waste any more money on this lawyer"). To make a long story short, I saw him get his stamped AP back and we left the room at around the same time).
My advise to you is - take both the copies - you will not regret it.
girlfriend Wallpaper Download Sizes
PDOCT05
08-15 02:11 PM
I thought this will give some hope to you.
Mine reached USCIS on July-3rd around 6:00am. All 6 (2x485, 2xAP, 2xEAD) checks were cached today.
Hope yours on the way too...
Is your packet is signed by R.Williams? where is your I-140 approved? and what is your PD?
Mine reached USCIS on July-3rd around 6:00am. All 6 (2x485, 2xAP, 2xEAD) checks were cached today.
Hope yours on the way too...
Is your packet is signed by R.Williams? where is your I-140 approved? and what is your PD?
hairstyles new york yankees wallpaper
venram
01-09 02:42 PM
When is it scheduled to publish? My guess is EB2 would move towards end of 2001 and slight or no movement in EB3.
ebizash
06-26 01:50 PM
How can any court / law hold the employee accountable for a contract that he / she did not sign? If I am reading it right, the OP is saying that the contract was signed by recruiter stating that the employee will be responsible for all costs. If that is the case, the contract should be binding on the recruiter if any one at all.
paskal
10-26 03:11 PM
Can you talk in english please?
:D
:D
0 comments:
Post a Comment