venky80
06-16 04:35 PM
Raziz,
Did you get any queries ever? I mean RFEs?
Did you get any queries ever? I mean RFEs?
wallpaper 2007 Honda Civic Si Warwick,
jediknight
07-26 09:59 AM
Good advice with different viewpoints.
My advice is "Look for a good mentors" with who you can discuss your situation in detail.
My preference is
Family
GC
Career
This works better in the long term :-)
- JK
My advice is "Look for a good mentors" with who you can discuss your situation in detail.
My preference is
Family
GC
Career
This works better in the long term :-)
- JK
satishku_2000
02-21 01:09 PM
I saw that in morning , trust me its one of those things I do on my laptop everyday in the morning.
I try to access the page now and it shows the old one ...hehe :mad: ..
Hopefully they are in the process of correcting/retracting ...
I try to access the page now and it shows the old one ...hehe :mad: ..
Hopefully they are in the process of correcting/retracting ...
2011 COMMA: 1990 Honda Civic Si #24
Munna Bhai
03-24 01:55 PM
audio streaming archives are available 1 to 2 hours after the show. Check here http://wamu.org/programs/kn/08/03/24.php#20155.
Our segment was about 40 minutes in. My web streamer won't allow fast forward, don't know if limitation is the client or the server. Robert and Ron go through the standard Pro / Anti H1B arguments for the first 40 minutes. I didn't want to be part of that.
I hate listening to my own voice, thanks for the complements, it will make listening to my own voice less cringing.
Mark,
Thank you very very much for this great initiative. It was a wonderful work.
-M
Our segment was about 40 minutes in. My web streamer won't allow fast forward, don't know if limitation is the client or the server. Robert and Ron go through the standard Pro / Anti H1B arguments for the first 40 minutes. I didn't want to be part of that.
I hate listening to my own voice, thanks for the complements, it will make listening to my own voice less cringing.
Mark,
Thank you very very much for this great initiative. It was a wonderful work.
-M
more...
amsgc
04-02 08:47 PM
I agree, if you have applied for I-485, F1 is not a good idea. I wasn't aware of the OP's GC situation.
Editing post: It seems that the OP applied for I-140 late last year, and the country of chargeability is India (public profile). So, in this case, F1 is probably a better bet.
All other points are on the dot!
Only F1 being better than h4 is really depending on one's situation..
F1 is Non-Immigrant intent status.. meaning, if you apply for 140, or even have LC applied and USCIS finds out.. you can forget abt getting visa..
Secondly, F1 has become much restrictive since implementation of SEVIS.
H4 on the other hand is duel intent
Major advantages of F1 would be
1. Possible on-campus 20hr work authorization and later OPT authorization.
2 Chances of getting assistanceship.
So it's not black and white..
and if you've applied for 485.. F1 is really definitely not the way to go..
Editing post: It seems that the OP applied for I-140 late last year, and the country of chargeability is India (public profile). So, in this case, F1 is probably a better bet.
All other points are on the dot!
Only F1 being better than h4 is really depending on one's situation..
F1 is Non-Immigrant intent status.. meaning, if you apply for 140, or even have LC applied and USCIS finds out.. you can forget abt getting visa..
Secondly, F1 has become much restrictive since implementation of SEVIS.
H4 on the other hand is duel intent
Major advantages of F1 would be
1. Possible on-campus 20hr work authorization and later OPT authorization.
2 Chances of getting assistanceship.
So it's not black and white..
and if you've applied for 485.. F1 is really definitely not the way to go..
BharatPremi
09-22 09:40 PM
Gurus,
Yesterday my lawyer received receipts for my spouse and kids (485/EAD/AP) but not for myself. Now my lawyer is insisting upon sending me the copies of the receipts and do not want to send me the originals. With respect to that I have following questions:
1) Is that o.k having copies only or we should have originals? If we do not
have originals what bad may happen?
2) Either my lawyer or I have not received any of my receipts but we
received all receipts of my family. Is this normal? How long should we wait
for my receipts before contacting USCIS? By the way USCIS already gave
me my all numbers for teh receipts and according to USCIS my receipts
already mailed on Sept 14th. What would be advisable action for me in
this case?
3) None of the receipts of my family contain Priority Date. PD field is blank on all receipts. Is this O.K.?
Thanks.
- BharatPremi
Yesterday my lawyer received receipts for my spouse and kids (485/EAD/AP) but not for myself. Now my lawyer is insisting upon sending me the copies of the receipts and do not want to send me the originals. With respect to that I have following questions:
1) Is that o.k having copies only or we should have originals? If we do not
have originals what bad may happen?
2) Either my lawyer or I have not received any of my receipts but we
received all receipts of my family. Is this normal? How long should we wait
for my receipts before contacting USCIS? By the way USCIS already gave
me my all numbers for teh receipts and according to USCIS my receipts
already mailed on Sept 14th. What would be advisable action for me in
this case?
3) None of the receipts of my family contain Priority Date. PD field is blank on all receipts. Is this O.K.?
Thanks.
- BharatPremi
more...
ivgclive
03-09 02:42 PM
You are already in EAD, and hopefully crossed 185 days dead line. Why can't you go with your EAD for rest of your life?
2010 2000 Honda Civic EX Easley, SC
sury
11-15 04:17 PM
can anyone reply on this..!!
more...
geesee
07-20 05:21 PM
^^^^
hair honda civic si 2000 black. Honda Civic Si 2000 Black
LostInGCProcess
09-19 05:51 PM
meaning I can work for company B now and even though my h1b renewal approves with company A? then when I feel like I can go out and reenter before the h1b renewal period ends?
sabr, could you be more elaborate regarding the 2 companies, where do u work, and who is offering you the job, how do they want to hire you, etc... Please explain clearly what your question is? Iam trying to say something and you are interpreting it differently and it looks like we are off pace somewhere.
sabr, could you be more elaborate regarding the 2 companies, where do u work, and who is offering you the job, how do they want to hire you, etc... Please explain clearly what your question is? Iam trying to say something and you are interpreting it differently and it looks like we are off pace somewhere.
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
hot honda civic si 2000 black. Honda Civic Si 2000 Black.
serg
10-30 08:47 PM
You can start working on EAD now and wait for the H1 approval to come through.
WTF are you talking about, man??? It was said hundreds times: once one use EAD, h(is|er) H(1|4) is GONE!!! Per my lawyer, if you filed H1 extension before expiration, you are ok, in this case ext. filing date make sense.
WTF are you talking about, man??? It was said hundreds times: once one use EAD, h(is|er) H(1|4) is GONE!!! Per my lawyer, if you filed H1 extension before expiration, you are ok, in this case ext. filing date make sense.
more...
house 2008 Honda Civic Si Review
aadimanav
02-08 10:32 AM
Ok. So if I summarize, you guys are providing the following ranges:
22 Lakhs to 40 Lakhs
20 Lakhs to 35 Lakhs
12 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs
3 Lakhs to 4 Lakhs
That means, 3 Lakhs to 40 Lakhs. :)
Wow! what a huge difference
22 Lakhs to 40 Lakhs
20 Lakhs to 35 Lakhs
12 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs
3 Lakhs to 4 Lakhs
That means, 3 Lakhs to 40 Lakhs. :)
Wow! what a huge difference
tattoo honda civic si 2000 black. Civic Si: Black Pearl 2000
tonyHK12
12-01 10:01 AM
Definitely a good idea.........the first thing that needs to happen is for us immigrants to contact our own employers (and if it is a big company - they will have some section that deals with govt affairs/lobbying) ask them to support our cause through action.......
I work for a small company, but my employer is a very decent man and may provide some funds..........(Christmas season and all!).
If he chooses to donate would it be the "contribute" link?
Great! thanks for your efforts. Yes it would be good if he creates an account and logs in before donating, that way it would be credited as his contribution.
The link is in my signature but you can also follow the link 'Donate' at the top in green or 'Contributions' on the home page.
Of course other large companies like the ones in Silicon Valley, MS, etc could also directly reach out to our admin/core besides this and also help in lobbying.
I work for a small company, but my employer is a very decent man and may provide some funds..........(Christmas season and all!).
If he chooses to donate would it be the "contribute" link?
Great! thanks for your efforts. Yes it would be good if he creates an account and logs in before donating, that way it would be credited as his contribution.
The link is in my signature but you can also follow the link 'Donate' at the top in green or 'Contributions' on the home page.
Of course other large companies like the ones in Silicon Valley, MS, etc could also directly reach out to our admin/core besides this and also help in lobbying.
more...
pictures 2000 Honda Civic Si
nobody
05-27 02:16 PM
soul's sucks=)
dresses 2007 Honda Civic Si 4-door
sree_99
02-01 07:11 PM
Sorry, if this is already discussed mutiple times. I was not able to find any Info.
My Wife needs to travel to India urgently. She is currently on F1 Visa and has EAD and Advance Parole.
While Coming back is it required to use AP or can she come back on F1. Please help me with some info or pointers to exisitng threads discussing this are greatly appreciated
Thanks,
-Sree
My Wife needs to travel to India urgently. She is currently on F1 Visa and has EAD and Advance Parole.
While Coming back is it required to use AP or can she come back on F1. Please help me with some info or pointers to exisitng threads discussing this are greatly appreciated
Thanks,
-Sree
more...
makeup Honda Civic Si - Scratch Made
arnet
09-17 07:11 PM
disclaimer: i'm nt an immigration attroney, so please consult one for exact situation, as laws and procedures are constantly changing.
I'm NOT in medical field but writing based on what i heard..thought might be useful for you.....below is the most common way of coming to US for MBBS degree holders in india....
they can write USMLE exam (check www.usmle.org) and if they pass the step1, step2, step3 exams they can apply to US universities (atleast few of them based on the score) for MD residency programs which is usually four years course.
some say step1 and step2 is enough to apply but step3 gives more advantage but nt sure. BUT CHECK THE ELIGILIBITY FOR EXAM AND DO RESEARCH ON THESE COURSE AND OTHER TOPICS TO GET EXACT DETAILS...
they can come here in H1 or J1 visa if they get into residency programs but check the procedures. but in general, after residency program, they need to work 3 yrs in underreserved areas (mostly 30-50 miles away from city, nt bad, oppurtunites are good there).
writing USMLE and getting into residency programs is really very very tough as more competition now and need very top score and their previous experience, degree/diplomas, research, etc helps.
if they both try and one get it through, then the one who get it into residency program can come into J1 or H1 visa and others can come in H4 visa (dependents-children and spouse).
they will be paid atleast 40-50k per yr during the residency (four yrs) and after that based on their work and experience, they will paid more atleast >100k per yr.
regd greencard, i think, they can apply only after 3yrs of working in under-reserved areas. some say they wont have to do labor because they get waiver because they worked 3 yrs in under-reserved areas but for this you need to consult an immigration lawyer.
but for all this, they have to first COLLECT all the details and CHECK THE ELIGILIBITY FOR ALL THIS...they have to plan properly because while studying for USMLE or during this entire process, it is nt easier but they have to undergo a LOT of stress as they might think we are doing well in india why we moved here. but remember, it pays them in long run, it depends on each one how they look.
good luck....:)
Folks,
I need some guidance from experienced folks particularly those who hold MBBS degree from India and are already in US in medical profession.
My brother has received MBBS about 5 years go and he is doing his practice in rural area. His wife is also MBBS and also holds a diploma on OB/GYN area.
My question is if they want to immigrate to US what are various paths they can follow to get here?
Thanks in advance.
PAN123
I'm NOT in medical field but writing based on what i heard..thought might be useful for you.....below is the most common way of coming to US for MBBS degree holders in india....
they can write USMLE exam (check www.usmle.org) and if they pass the step1, step2, step3 exams they can apply to US universities (atleast few of them based on the score) for MD residency programs which is usually four years course.
some say step1 and step2 is enough to apply but step3 gives more advantage but nt sure. BUT CHECK THE ELIGILIBITY FOR EXAM AND DO RESEARCH ON THESE COURSE AND OTHER TOPICS TO GET EXACT DETAILS...
they can come here in H1 or J1 visa if they get into residency programs but check the procedures. but in general, after residency program, they need to work 3 yrs in underreserved areas (mostly 30-50 miles away from city, nt bad, oppurtunites are good there).
writing USMLE and getting into residency programs is really very very tough as more competition now and need very top score and their previous experience, degree/diplomas, research, etc helps.
if they both try and one get it through, then the one who get it into residency program can come into J1 or H1 visa and others can come in H4 visa (dependents-children and spouse).
they will be paid atleast 40-50k per yr during the residency (four yrs) and after that based on their work and experience, they will paid more atleast >100k per yr.
regd greencard, i think, they can apply only after 3yrs of working in under-reserved areas. some say they wont have to do labor because they get waiver because they worked 3 yrs in under-reserved areas but for this you need to consult an immigration lawyer.
but for all this, they have to first COLLECT all the details and CHECK THE ELIGILIBITY FOR ALL THIS...they have to plan properly because while studying for USMLE or during this entire process, it is nt easier but they have to undergo a LOT of stress as they might think we are doing well in india why we moved here. but remember, it pays them in long run, it depends on each one how they look.
good luck....:)
Folks,
I need some guidance from experienced folks particularly those who hold MBBS degree from India and are already in US in medical profession.
My brother has received MBBS about 5 years go and he is doing his practice in rural area. His wife is also MBBS and also holds a diploma on OB/GYN area.
My question is if they want to immigrate to US what are various paths they can follow to get here?
Thanks in advance.
PAN123
girlfriend honda civic si 2000 black. Honda Civic 2000 Sedan.
LostInGCProcess
08-25 12:31 PM
Best thing to do in this case is, simply use your AP. No H1b stamping is needed. You can still remain on an H1B even if you use the AP for travelling.
As per my lawyer, the H1B has 2 aspects to it. One is the fact that it maintains status, the second is the actual stamped visa which allows entry/re-entry into the USA. You dont HAVE to have the stamped visa, if you have alternate means of re-entry.
I work for Company A, applied i-485 and both got EAD & AP.She is the dependent.
My Wife works for Company B which sponsored her H1.
So, I guess she cannot continue to work on H1(company B) upon returning using AP(got as my dependent thru Company A) !!!?? am I correct?
As per my lawyer, the H1B has 2 aspects to it. One is the fact that it maintains status, the second is the actual stamped visa which allows entry/re-entry into the USA. You dont HAVE to have the stamped visa, if you have alternate means of re-entry.
I work for Company A, applied i-485 and both got EAD & AP.She is the dependent.
My Wife works for Company B which sponsored her H1.
So, I guess she cannot continue to work on H1(company B) upon returning using AP(got as my dependent thru Company A) !!!?? am I correct?
hairstyles Honda Civic Si 2000
Roger Binny
04-06 01:14 AM
If your case is I-140 + I- 485 applied at the same time, then word on the street is they will process both at the same time rather than processing I140 first then wait for visa dates and process I485, hope you are already aware of this rumor/speculation or truth.
sury
11-15 04:17 PM
can anyone reply on this..!!
GCBy3000
04-15 07:35 PM
I agree as long as you have filed your 485 and 180 days is passed. But in my case, I have not even crossed the labor stage. It was pending with BEC when my company asked me to move. I tried a lot to convince my attorney thinking that I might miss the boat of 485 if at all it becomes current, but it did not help.
THe LPR clearly states that it will become void if any of the below changes.
1. Job description
2. Location
3. Something else, I dont remeber.
The above will not come into effect, if you had crossed 180 days of 485.
Also my attorney told that USCIS will not be able to find from where I file from 485, but it is risk on my part when I go for naturalization. Also if for some reaosn a RFE is issued, any company will tell the truth and the beneficiary will be in trouble. So it is always better to file a new labor unless the beneficiary is intened to move back to original location during the adjucation process and stays at that location for 6+ months.
I dont understand how you got away with this one after changing the location. With your example, the locational requirement of LPR does not make sense at all. Anybody can file LPR anywhere and move anywhere as long as 485 takes more than 180 days. One can deliberately file 485 with improper documentst to delay the approval and getaway. Double check with your attorney on this one and playing safe is not bad idea at all with the current USCIS mess and immigration laws.
AGAIN, I THINK WHEN YOU FILE YOUR 485 you have to be working in the location as stated in your LPR AS PER THE LAW, eventhough USCIS will not be able to find it. Before PERM, there was a column to state the beneficiary will work anywhere in US. But this not available anymore with PERM. The bottom line is the strongest part of LPR, "THE LOCATION", does not make sense at all.
By making you file for new labor, your attorney has played it too safe. In your case, filing a new labor was not neccesary. Please read below and check with an immigration lawyer for advice. I AM NOT A LAWYER but this advice is based on 2 different lawyers I have talked to regarding my own case where I moved from Phoenix, to Reno after my labor was filed.
Here is the deal when changing the location while GC is pending:
1. You can change location during your pending GC. But your job description must not change. Also, you have to move back to the location where your GC was filed, ONLY IF your 485 is processed and approved in less than 180 days from filing (I dont think USCIS will ever be that efficient and process 485 petitions in less than 180 days). That's because your option of AC21 of changing employers and locations (within the same job description, you cant work at a gas station or McDonalds) kicks in after 180 days of filing 485. If your 485 is approved in less than 180 days, then yes, you have to go back to the original location where your Greencard was filed because you dont have the AC21 options of switching employers and locations during your 485 stage ... which is available ONLY AFTER 180 days have passed in the processing of your 485 file.
So as long as your 485 takes longer than 180 days, you can continue to work at your new location even though you GC and labor was filed at a previous location.
2. After 180 days of filing 485, you can change employers using your EAD and change locations. No limit. But it has to be the same job description. You cannot start working as a manager if your Greencard was filed for the position of a programmer.
THe LPR clearly states that it will become void if any of the below changes.
1. Job description
2. Location
3. Something else, I dont remeber.
The above will not come into effect, if you had crossed 180 days of 485.
Also my attorney told that USCIS will not be able to find from where I file from 485, but it is risk on my part when I go for naturalization. Also if for some reaosn a RFE is issued, any company will tell the truth and the beneficiary will be in trouble. So it is always better to file a new labor unless the beneficiary is intened to move back to original location during the adjucation process and stays at that location for 6+ months.
I dont understand how you got away with this one after changing the location. With your example, the locational requirement of LPR does not make sense at all. Anybody can file LPR anywhere and move anywhere as long as 485 takes more than 180 days. One can deliberately file 485 with improper documentst to delay the approval and getaway. Double check with your attorney on this one and playing safe is not bad idea at all with the current USCIS mess and immigration laws.
AGAIN, I THINK WHEN YOU FILE YOUR 485 you have to be working in the location as stated in your LPR AS PER THE LAW, eventhough USCIS will not be able to find it. Before PERM, there was a column to state the beneficiary will work anywhere in US. But this not available anymore with PERM. The bottom line is the strongest part of LPR, "THE LOCATION", does not make sense at all.
By making you file for new labor, your attorney has played it too safe. In your case, filing a new labor was not neccesary. Please read below and check with an immigration lawyer for advice. I AM NOT A LAWYER but this advice is based on 2 different lawyers I have talked to regarding my own case where I moved from Phoenix, to Reno after my labor was filed.
Here is the deal when changing the location while GC is pending:
1. You can change location during your pending GC. But your job description must not change. Also, you have to move back to the location where your GC was filed, ONLY IF your 485 is processed and approved in less than 180 days from filing (I dont think USCIS will ever be that efficient and process 485 petitions in less than 180 days). That's because your option of AC21 of changing employers and locations (within the same job description, you cant work at a gas station or McDonalds) kicks in after 180 days of filing 485. If your 485 is approved in less than 180 days, then yes, you have to go back to the original location where your Greencard was filed because you dont have the AC21 options of switching employers and locations during your 485 stage ... which is available ONLY AFTER 180 days have passed in the processing of your 485 file.
So as long as your 485 takes longer than 180 days, you can continue to work at your new location even though you GC and labor was filed at a previous location.
2. After 180 days of filing 485, you can change employers using your EAD and change locations. No limit. But it has to be the same job description. You cannot start working as a manager if your Greencard was filed for the position of a programmer.
No comments:
Post a Comment