uverdav
03-29 10:39 AM
Labor : 02/2003
Category : EB3
I-140 & I-485 : 06/2004
Appoved I-140 : 09/2004
Working on EAD now!
Can I Change employer with AC-21?
Category : EB3
I-140 & I-485 : 06/2004
Appoved I-140 : 09/2004
Working on EAD now!
Can I Change employer with AC-21?
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
desiap
01-14 10:19 PM
Hi,
I've been working full-time on EAD for the last 2+ years. I have a pending 485 application, on which my spouse is the primary applicant. I have never applied for H1B in the past, because I transferred directly from F1 (student visa) to this EAD.
My spouse also has an H1B, which is in it's 7th year (completed 6 yrs of H1B).
My spouse has been put on furlough (unpaid leave) for 3 months.
What are our options ?
1. Can my employer file H1B for me, and an H4 for my spouse ? How will this affect our green card application (on which my spouse is primary applicant) ?
2. How much time does my spouse have to look for another job (with similar job description), without being out of status ? Is there some grace period associated with H1?
Thanks
I've been working full-time on EAD for the last 2+ years. I have a pending 485 application, on which my spouse is the primary applicant. I have never applied for H1B in the past, because I transferred directly from F1 (student visa) to this EAD.
My spouse also has an H1B, which is in it's 7th year (completed 6 yrs of H1B).
My spouse has been put on furlough (unpaid leave) for 3 months.
What are our options ?
1. Can my employer file H1B for me, and an H4 for my spouse ? How will this affect our green card application (on which my spouse is primary applicant) ?
2. How much time does my spouse have to look for another job (with similar job description), without being out of status ? Is there some grace period associated with H1?
Thanks
harryimmi
07-14 05:53 PM
Hi
I came to US with H1 on Apr 2009. My wife who was working in the same company as I do, joined me on Dec 2009 with H4 visa. My H1 has expired on June 18 '10. I have applied for H1 extension much before and currently my status is pending with USCIS. Along with my H1 extension I have also applied for my wife's H4 extension. Her status is also pending.
My company has actually filed H1 visa for my wife for 2011 H1B quota.
I have the following questions, can someone kindly answer the same.
i) If my wife gets her H1 petition approved, should she travel back to my country to get it stamped and for her to work here in US?
Some say she should go back and some say she can start working here with her I797 notice, she can get it stamped whenever she goes to my country. Which is true?
ii) Assuming I get approval for my H1 extension and her H4 extension, should she get H4 extension stamped as well?
iii) Can she go for stamping for H1 as well as H4 in my country, if so which one should she go for first?
I came to US with H1 on Apr 2009. My wife who was working in the same company as I do, joined me on Dec 2009 with H4 visa. My H1 has expired on June 18 '10. I have applied for H1 extension much before and currently my status is pending with USCIS. Along with my H1 extension I have also applied for my wife's H4 extension. Her status is also pending.
My company has actually filed H1 visa for my wife for 2011 H1B quota.
I have the following questions, can someone kindly answer the same.
i) If my wife gets her H1 petition approved, should she travel back to my country to get it stamped and for her to work here in US?
Some say she should go back and some say she can start working here with her I797 notice, she can get it stamped whenever she goes to my country. Which is true?
ii) Assuming I get approval for my H1 extension and her H4 extension, should she get H4 extension stamped as well?
iii) Can she go for stamping for H1 as well as H4 in my country, if so which one should she go for first?
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
Blog Feeds
05-27 12:40 PM
Keep an eye on the military appropriations bill Congress is working on for a potential immigration piece. The AP reports that Republicans want some serious money and personnel commitments for the southern border. And my own sources are telling me that some Democrats are looking at trying to get the DREAM Act in that same piece of legislation. Remember, DREAM allows for some who join the military to pursue permanent residency so it would be a germane part of the bill. A down payment on comprehensive immigration reform? Or the end of that effort and the return to piecemeal legislating?...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/cirlite-deal-in-the-works.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/cirlite-deal-in-the-works.html)
more...
lordoftherings
06-16 01:40 PM
thanks!
rockyrock
08-02 07:00 PM
On I-765 item# 11 it asks us "Date". Which date are they referring to? Cause I had applied for OPT EAD twice (duration of 6 months each). Can someone pls let me know.....
more...
kalkix
08-10 02:12 PM
Hi guys,
I am adding my wife's AOS application to my own pending AOS application. Because of whatever reasons we couldn't file our apps together earlier.
I notice that I need to give my wife's Alien registration no (ARN) at a couple of places in the application package, such as in the I-485 form, G-325A form, and at the back of the photographs.
Needless to say, my wife does not have an ARN. I was allocated an ARN when my I-140 got approved. Since she is just a derivative beneficiary, she does not have an ARN yet.
So what should I do about these columns in the form. Should I leave them blank, or should I fill them up with my own ARN.
Please help
Thanks
K
I am adding my wife's AOS application to my own pending AOS application. Because of whatever reasons we couldn't file our apps together earlier.
I notice that I need to give my wife's Alien registration no (ARN) at a couple of places in the application package, such as in the I-485 form, G-325A form, and at the back of the photographs.
Needless to say, my wife does not have an ARN. I was allocated an ARN when my I-140 got approved. Since she is just a derivative beneficiary, she does not have an ARN yet.
So what should I do about these columns in the form. Should I leave them blank, or should I fill them up with my own ARN.
Please help
Thanks
K
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
desi3933
03-05 04:16 PM
.....
My question is can a L2 visa holder with EAD stay back and continue working in U.S.A, after L1 has left the country ?.
No.
My question is can a L2 visa holder with EAD stay back and continue working in U.S.A, after L1 has left the country ?.
No.
more...
omsakthi
02-12 08:35 PM
Dear Attorneys, Some one could you please reply.
THanks,
omsakthi.
THanks,
omsakthi.
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
waitin_toolong
07-30 01:32 PM
yes you can if the intent is to go back to the sponsoring employer.
the gc is for future job not current.
the gc is for future job not current.
more...
chidurala
07-28 08:13 AM
hi
my husband's GC has been approved.
so how long will it take me to get the green card ??
thank u in advance
my husband's GC has been approved.
so how long will it take me to get the green card ??
thank u in advance
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
keerthisagar
07-16 02:29 PM
why does this thread not come on the homepage?
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
gcspace
01-21 11:39 PM
I have EB2 PERM and EB3 I140 approved. Since my EB3 PD date is earlier than EB2 PD , my lawyer filed my 485 with EB3 I140.
Is there any way to find from 485 receipt or application which I140 was used for filing ?
Please advise.
Is there any way to find from 485 receipt or application which I140 was used for filing ?
Please advise.
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
smartin
04-30 06:02 PM
Hi all,
I had my h1 issued in nov '09 and was laid off from the company in march '10. However, I was able to secure other position in the same company a month later. But now the company wants me to exit/re-enter the country (and get my visa stamped) before starting the new position.
Since I was technically out of status for the month of April (and don't have any paystubs for the same), will it be difficult to get my h1 visa stamped? Also, can I get my stamping done in Canada, or will I have to my home country?
Thanks in advance..
S. M
I had my h1 issued in nov '09 and was laid off from the company in march '10. However, I was able to secure other position in the same company a month later. But now the company wants me to exit/re-enter the country (and get my visa stamped) before starting the new position.
Since I was technically out of status for the month of April (and don't have any paystubs for the same), will it be difficult to get my h1 visa stamped? Also, can I get my stamping done in Canada, or will I have to my home country?
Thanks in advance..
S. M
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
dudgerin
02-24 06:18 PM
Hi,
Did you file for the prevailing wage as per the new rules from Jan 01,2010?
My prevailing wage request was sent through mail and never returned back.
Did you file for the prevailing wage as per the new rules from Jan 01,2010?
My prevailing wage request was sent through mail and never returned back.
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
weasel026
04-20 10:13 PM
if your used to the easy layout of cinema 3d (like me) then stick to it cause its alot easyer to use that 3d studio max then when you get more used to 3d design then you should maybe choose to start using 3d studio max.
but thats only my opinion.
~flash weasel
but thats only my opinion.
~flash weasel
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
gc_75
07-11 10:58 AM
Hello Everybody. I am new to IV. Recently I have filed my wife's I-485 (06/28) after my I-485 approval on 06/18. My lawyer said that he has filed it by using the "Follow to join" benefits. He is saying that he cannot guarantee that USCIS will accept the I-485 since my I-485 is already approved. He said that we just have to wait and see until the receipt notice is issued.
Is anybody else in similar situation? Also does any one know what kind of documentation and cover letter needs to be included for this kind of case? I have asked him if he has included the I-485 approval notice and he said "No".
Thanks for your time:
Is anybody else in similar situation? Also does any one know what kind of documentation and cover letter needs to be included for this kind of case? I have asked him if he has included the I-485 approval notice and he said "No".
Thanks for your time:
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
lilymc
07-18 09:35 PM
Ooh, I like this one. :D
siva008
03-29 06:58 AM
B
thomasstuart
11-22 06:10 AM
Hi there,
I haven't got any ideas, but I was wondering if you ever got a solution
as I would like to do the same thing. Cheers!
I haven't got any ideas, but I was wondering if you ever got a solution
as I would like to do the same thing. Cheers!
No comments:
Post a Comment