braindrain
01-10 01:21 PM
hi
My situation is some what like you. In my father passport for place of birth one letter was missed. My father from his birth time onwards he is staying in that place. so present address and permanent address both are that village only.
Is it needed to correct that missing letter of village name for the place of birth in passport ? i am planning to apply for visitor visa for them soon. Does anyone have any idea about this process of corrrection in india and how long it might take.
If not needed while filling the forms for palce of birth how i have to mention like same in passport or the correct name of village ? If i need to mention the addresses like present or permanent how i have to mention the village name please reply so that i can do that.
Thank you in advance
I have done some research on the issue and spoke with one or two friends who came across this kind of scenarios. You can correct the details in the passport which I bet will be lengthy and time consuming OR correct the Birth Certificate which will be little easier as compared to the first one. If not fill the VISA related forms with the information you have in the passport and take an affidavit to explain the difference in place of birth in passport and birth certificate.
In my case my mothers name is different in the passport and birth certificate and I have taken an affidavit indicating that they are one and the same person. They will be going for VISA this week and I hope things should go well...
Will keep you posted on this...
My situation is some what like you. In my father passport for place of birth one letter was missed. My father from his birth time onwards he is staying in that place. so present address and permanent address both are that village only.
Is it needed to correct that missing letter of village name for the place of birth in passport ? i am planning to apply for visitor visa for them soon. Does anyone have any idea about this process of corrrection in india and how long it might take.
If not needed while filling the forms for palce of birth how i have to mention like same in passport or the correct name of village ? If i need to mention the addresses like present or permanent how i have to mention the village name please reply so that i can do that.
Thank you in advance
I have done some research on the issue and spoke with one or two friends who came across this kind of scenarios. You can correct the details in the passport which I bet will be lengthy and time consuming OR correct the Birth Certificate which will be little easier as compared to the first one. If not fill the VISA related forms with the information you have in the passport and take an affidavit to explain the difference in place of birth in passport and birth certificate.
In my case my mothers name is different in the passport and birth certificate and I have taken an affidavit indicating that they are one and the same person. They will be going for VISA this week and I hope things should go well...
Will keep you posted on this...
wallpaper true blood season 3 eric
99mutd08
06-18 03:50 PM
Nathu lodge is good to stay for 30 rs/night. This is behind the big koorakarkat near the laddoo baba temple. Just across the street from 2 coconut trees and coconut waterwaala.
Nathu lodge...30 Rs/night...lol.....good luck finding that
Nathu lodge...30 Rs/night...lol.....good luck finding that
canmt
11-14 06:48 PM
If the job offered is for 15-1031 and job responsiblities remain the same as 15-1031. It should be ok to work on SAP or any other bleeding edge technologies. Call USCIS and ask them for information.
2011 true blood season 3 eric cover. true blood season 4 eric
MArch172008
07-02 12:34 PM
My wife name in not mentioned while applying I140 , how does it imact?
Can i add her while applying I485
Can i add her while applying I485
more...
kopguy
05-12 06:56 PM
My PD is Sep-03, EB3-India. I left the employer who sponsored me one year after I filled 485 (thanks to July-07 fiasco). I have over 12 years of experience and was wondering if it was possible to port to EB-2 without having to file for new labor by just refilling I-140.
Thanks
Thanks
lazycis
12-27 04:53 PM
Do you have to use / file AC-21 if your I-140 is approved (long back in 2005) and you have passed 180 days of i485 received date?
You are automatically using AC21 if you are changing employers after 180 days. You may file AC21 letter/employment offer with the USCIS but you do not have to do it. It depends on your circumstances and preferences.
You are automatically using AC21 if you are changing employers after 180 days. You may file AC21 letter/employment offer with the USCIS but you do not have to do it. It depends on your circumstances and preferences.
more...
sk.aggarwal
06-17 08:45 AM
I would suggest if you could get the perm process started ASAP. Now a days it is getting approved quite fast, you may be good. You may also want to ask your manager if you could work remotely from outside US for couple of months. As per my understanding, if say you are short of 4 months between your PD and H1 expiry date you can do one of the following
1. Shift to some other status like H4
2. Move out of country for 4 months. Your employer will need to get H1 extension and you new stamping.
But as soon as labor gets approved, you will need to file for I140 and your will be good for 3 more year.
This is just from my understanding. I am in similar boat. Going out of US for 6 weeks starting from July.
1. Shift to some other status like H4
2. Move out of country for 4 months. Your employer will need to get H1 extension and you new stamping.
But as soon as labor gets approved, you will need to file for I140 and your will be good for 3 more year.
This is just from my understanding. I am in similar boat. Going out of US for 6 weeks starting from July.
2010 true blood season 3 theo
villamonte6100
08-10 05:20 PM
Guys,
I am happy to share with you all that I applied my 485 on 1 week of June and it got approved today.
My PD was dec 2005. eb3. India.
Thought i would share with you all.:)
When you get approved, does it mean that you have to go for an interview?
I am happy to share with you all that I applied my 485 on 1 week of June and it got approved today.
My PD was dec 2005. eb3. India.
Thought i would share with you all.:)
When you get approved, does it mean that you have to go for an interview?
more...
mhssatya
04-28 08:56 AM
hyderabad,
My file is moved to atlanta and my lawyer is from there as well. Where as i'm from virginia. It's been 8 months and I still haven't been called for an interview. Should I be proactive and do something about it or just wait for the interview letter?
Appreciate your response.
Hi mhssatya,
Better to hire local attorney, you guys can go at one time for an interview. Please do keep me posted after the interview.
I had interview on Mar 30th on I-485 Interview,
Earlier we got an denial on I-485 bcz of withdrawn my approved I-140 from Previous Employer.
Before itself I moved new employer uncer AC 21 portability.
We applied MTR on I-485 and thet is approved.
After that we recieved interview letter. The interview was Good, end of the interview, the officer told us, that will review again, if any docs needed will let you know with in 2 weeks.
Still didnt recive any response. Can you guys please do advice on my case, can i call to customer care on my case or better to go take an info pass.
Thanks
My file is moved to atlanta and my lawyer is from there as well. Where as i'm from virginia. It's been 8 months and I still haven't been called for an interview. Should I be proactive and do something about it or just wait for the interview letter?
Appreciate your response.
Hi mhssatya,
Better to hire local attorney, you guys can go at one time for an interview. Please do keep me posted after the interview.
I had interview on Mar 30th on I-485 Interview,
Earlier we got an denial on I-485 bcz of withdrawn my approved I-140 from Previous Employer.
Before itself I moved new employer uncer AC 21 portability.
We applied MTR on I-485 and thet is approved.
After that we recieved interview letter. The interview was Good, end of the interview, the officer told us, that will review again, if any docs needed will let you know with in 2 weeks.
Still didnt recive any response. Can you guys please do advice on my case, can i call to customer care on my case or better to go take an info pass.
Thanks
hair Anna Paquin#39;s quot;True Bloodquot;
himu73
09-17 12:27 PM
When AP is approved, you get 3 copies. I went twice on intl trips and each time they took a copy. I am left with 1 copy of the AP.
Now I need to go on one last intl trip (I have applied for renewal). I just have one copy of AP with me.
How does it work? Will the officer just stamp the AP and make a copy?
You mean 3 copies are 3 originals right to be more clear. You can use only 1 original when you come back and get it stamped each time with a new date.
I have used the same orginal AP for at least 4 times now.
You can carry copies of the original just in case.
Now I need to go on one last intl trip (I have applied for renewal). I just have one copy of AP with me.
How does it work? Will the officer just stamp the AP and make a copy?
You mean 3 copies are 3 originals right to be more clear. You can use only 1 original when you come back and get it stamped each time with a new date.
I have used the same orginal AP for at least 4 times now.
You can carry copies of the original just in case.
more...
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
hot pictures True Blood Season 3 true blood season 3 eric cover. true blood
h1bemployee
06-22 01:58 AM
pl somebody answer
more...
house True Blood, you know Eric
anu_t
05-13 04:53 PM
His position requires Masters Degree
The thing about EB2 is , "The job description needs to be specific." I have a experience that , lawyer gets scared when the job description is vague.
just "masters degree required" is sometimes not enough.
The thing about EB2 is , "The job description needs to be specific." I have a experience that , lawyer gets scared when the job description is vague.
just "masters degree required" is sometimes not enough.
tattoo #39;True Blood#39; Season 3 Sneaky
casinoroyale
09-05 10:11 PM
Yeah, call customer service and ask them to send new copies with correct picture.
Now the funny part is, who is going to get your picture on their AP. :D
Now the funny part is, who is going to get your picture on their AP. :D
more...
pictures True Blood Season #3 Episode #
transpass
08-01 12:42 PM
I am pleasantly surprised and would like to thank Sen Menendez on behalf of all the IV members in his constituency for sponsoring visa recapture bill in Senate. Few days back when we called his office, his position was different. But because of we all calling and requesting for his support, he graciouly has agreed to take up our case. Speaking with his staff, I came to know that more than thousand calls were made to his office in support of the visa recapture bill.
This is just my thinking...
Sen Menendez vigorously supports family based immigration...I watched the failed comprehensive immigration debate on senate floor almost in its entirety. There, he was like a lone warrior arguing against the senators (Like Sessions) who said CIR bill encourages chain migration, etc...He was totally supporting visas that enable family reunions.
hr 5882 supports recapture of lost family based visas along with those of employment based. So no surprise Sen Menendez introduced the senate version of the house bill...And that's good for us...and we will take it...
This is just my thinking...
Sen Menendez vigorously supports family based immigration...I watched the failed comprehensive immigration debate on senate floor almost in its entirety. There, he was like a lone warrior arguing against the senators (Like Sessions) who said CIR bill encourages chain migration, etc...He was totally supporting visas that enable family reunions.
hr 5882 supports recapture of lost family based visas along with those of employment based. So no surprise Sen Menendez introduced the senate version of the house bill...And that's good for us...and we will take it...
dresses lood season 3 eric cover.
prince_waiting
12-12 12:02 PM
Hi fellow IVians from the 'Heart of Dixie',
Birmingham is at an equal distant from Montgomery as well as from Huntsville if I am correct. Willing to travel from Auburn to Birmingham for a state chapter meeting if it is convened.
Birmingham is at an equal distant from Montgomery as well as from Huntsville if I am correct. Willing to travel from Auburn to Birmingham for a state chapter meeting if it is convened.
more...
makeup Thank you to True Blood#39;s Nest
nviren
03-24 05:34 PM
To me it looks like a good channel to sell anti-immi books written by Roy Beck and Leon Kolankiewicz
girlfriend Eric and Sookie trueblood sea3
goel_ar
12-19 11:05 AM
My h1 got approved in june 2008. I did travel to China in September & entered back on Sep 10 using H4. Is it possible that my entry changed my latest status to H4?
Thanks,
LG.
Thanks,
LG.
hairstyles Season 3 of True Blood.
VenuK
06-15 04:45 PM
Hi Meridiani,
Thank you for your response.
I did talk to Immigration Officer and my lawyer about it.
Immigration Officer said I-94 will be mailed to my employer and/or lawyer. even before that i talk to my lawyer about it. he said, I-94 will be the SAME number that i had company X.
I have to check with my lawyer for the your question what did you specify as your old employer? company X or the company whose H1 was denied and is now under appeal?
added to it .
my passport expiration date is March 2009. so i have to 6+ months validity for visa stamping so i have to go some time in July or August 2008.
how should i approach the situation, I'm confused...
who would be the right people i need to talk to. what would be my best bet....
Please advise.
Thank you for your response.
I did talk to Immigration Officer and my lawyer about it.
Immigration Officer said I-94 will be mailed to my employer and/or lawyer. even before that i talk to my lawyer about it. he said, I-94 will be the SAME number that i had company X.
I have to check with my lawyer for the your question what did you specify as your old employer? company X or the company whose H1 was denied and is now under appeal?
added to it .
my passport expiration date is March 2009. so i have to 6+ months validity for visa stamping so i have to go some time in July or August 2008.
how should i approach the situation, I'm confused...
who would be the right people i need to talk to. what would be my best bet....
Please advise.
prom2
07-22 12:03 AM
You are saying as if one has a choice.
If you file before August 17 then you have to pay the old fee. If you apply after August 17....
This is correct
If you file before August 17 then you have to pay the old fee. If you apply after August 17....
This is correct
ajju
02-25 12:04 AM
what am I missing here? other than the hassle of getting paper copies filled out/ printed and the advantage of getting a refund a few weeks earlier, what is the advantage of e-filing?
at the end its matter of choice... but having choice is always good :-)
at the end its matter of choice... but having choice is always good :-)
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق