perm2gc
11-03 04:30 PM
The health benefit is actually indicated in my employment contract as part of my employment package. However, they later informed me that the health benefit is already part of my salary.
I actually signed a non-compete contract with my current employer(which means I cannot work for my current client if I switch employer). Now, I'm planning to move to a different employer, but I would be assigned to the same client. Can I argue that since they did not give me the health benefit that they promised me, then it should be okay if I violate the non-compete contract? Do you guys think I have a point of defense?
Thanks!
Not Really..Your NCA will have clause that you will not sue/take legal action against employer and you are given time to legal consultation before signing the NCA contract...
Try to find out whether NCA's are valid in your employers state..For sure i know California does not honor NCA's..
I actually signed a non-compete contract with my current employer(which means I cannot work for my current client if I switch employer). Now, I'm planning to move to a different employer, but I would be assigned to the same client. Can I argue that since they did not give me the health benefit that they promised me, then it should be okay if I violate the non-compete contract? Do you guys think I have a point of defense?
Thanks!
Not Really..Your NCA will have clause that you will not sue/take legal action against employer and you are given time to legal consultation before signing the NCA contract...
Try to find out whether NCA's are valid in your employers state..For sure i know California does not honor NCA's..
wallpaper c backgrounds, Alexandria+
bugmenot
04-10 05:10 PM
I don't get what caused the sudden spike in the Master's quota. Earlier it used to be open for at least 15 days... Can it be because of increase in number of international students or people loosing in previous year lotteries going for Masters??? I seriously believe that H1B visa program needs reform - a valid job offer (read project for consultancies) must be necessary for applying AND a joining date within 2 months of starting FY. This is true madness going on.
this happened because alot of students filed through multiple employers
(read desi consultants) to better their chances
i hope they do something about this artificial inflation and fraud bodyshoppers
the masters quota would never have gone into lottery then
this happened because alot of students filed through multiple employers
(read desi consultants) to better their chances
i hope they do something about this artificial inflation and fraud bodyshoppers
the masters quota would never have gone into lottery then
hourglass
07-16 05:43 PM
"The formal announcement of the CIS �solution� has been held up because they need to receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget. This suggests that the CIS solution may include one or more changes to the existing regulations. In any event, all sources are reporting that, at a minimum, all July filings will be accepted. The possible regulatory changes suggest possible far reaching solutions that go beyond the immediate problem"
where do you all see/consult for updates or news on USCIS activities?
where do you all see/consult for updates or news on USCIS activities?
2011 Warhol photographed Jones on
frostrated
10-26 10:58 AM
i think they are going to do it every quarter. i am thinking that the results in the aug 2009 file were third quarter FY 2009 data. so i am thinking that the data as of sept 2009 will be out in Nov. any other predictions?
more...
Dhundhun
09-02 08:47 PM
Folks,
Due to the priority data transfer issue my I-485 application was rejected in June'08 (submitted based on June'08 visa bulletin).
As part of my application necessary medical exam tests were conducted in May'08. If I were to submit my application today based on the new visa bulletin do you think I need to take all medical exams again and re-submit? Won't the first set of medical exams have any validity?
Also, on the forums there is a talk about medical forms being changed? Can anyone confirm?
Thanks in advance for all your responses.
As I remember, the validity is one year.
Due to the priority data transfer issue my I-485 application was rejected in June'08 (submitted based on June'08 visa bulletin).
As part of my application necessary medical exam tests were conducted in May'08. If I were to submit my application today based on the new visa bulletin do you think I need to take all medical exams again and re-submit? Won't the first set of medical exams have any validity?
Also, on the forums there is a talk about medical forms being changed? Can anyone confirm?
Thanks in advance for all your responses.
As I remember, the validity is one year.
rock945
02-22 01:36 AM
does anyone know what dates are currently processed for H4 to F1 conversion in CSC. Even though the processing time in website say Nov 20th, i knew of people who applied after that date but received their approvals.. just like to know what the "Real" Current processing dates are ..
thanks
thanks
more...
ujjwal_p
03-26 03:40 PM
just listen to the show - wonderful performance - you were crisp and to the point ... your points on this EB mess and the closing comments were great ... the 2nd caller shows the typical American common man mentality towards EB community ...
First of all, Mark: Great job ! I think this was a great spokesperson job for our issue. I think the biggest problem facing our issue is lack of awareness. I disagree with sammyb's comment. I don't think the 2nd caller shows the typical american mentailty towards *our* issue. Any talk about immigration, be it legal or illegal, gets overtaken with the bigger illegal immigration debate. And that is natural given the scale of illegal immigration problem when compared to the legal one. I think Mark gave a great response to the 2nd caller by giving perspective. Until there is more awareness about the *legal* immigration issues and a separation from the larger illegal immigration debate, this will be a tough battle.
On the face of it, this shouldn't be hard. People who follow the rules and the majority of them being tremendous assets to the American economy. Just the kind of immigrants a country would want : educated (in quite a few cases highly), skillful , law abiding and language proficient. Yet, here we are.
First of all, Mark: Great job ! I think this was a great spokesperson job for our issue. I think the biggest problem facing our issue is lack of awareness. I disagree with sammyb's comment. I don't think the 2nd caller shows the typical american mentailty towards *our* issue. Any talk about immigration, be it legal or illegal, gets overtaken with the bigger illegal immigration debate. And that is natural given the scale of illegal immigration problem when compared to the legal one. I think Mark gave a great response to the 2nd caller by giving perspective. Until there is more awareness about the *legal* immigration issues and a separation from the larger illegal immigration debate, this will be a tough battle.
On the face of it, this shouldn't be hard. People who follow the rules and the majority of them being tremendous assets to the American economy. Just the kind of immigrants a country would want : educated (in quite a few cases highly), skillful , law abiding and language proficient. Yet, here we are.
2010 Duncan Jones
H4_losing_hope
04-15 04:28 PM
Hi folks,
Just got back from UK on Friday after a month of family time, medicals and our embassy interview! Wanted to let you all know that we were approved and happily back in the US!!
Congrats on the latest admin wins and movements in campaigns/projects. I wanted to say a huge thank you but not farewell to the many kind folks who kept my spirits high in the short time I have been with IV:
abhijitp, needhelp, digital2k, paskal, gsc999, waiting4gc, pappu, chanduv23, santb1975, nolaindian32, walking dude, ja1hind, logiclife and many more. All of you rock and America is very lucky to have such genuine and brilliant people like you. I wish you the very best for your own journey.
I will be around for sure, just have to concentrate on securing some work and life for a bit, finally!
my best :)
Just got back from UK on Friday after a month of family time, medicals and our embassy interview! Wanted to let you all know that we were approved and happily back in the US!!
Congrats on the latest admin wins and movements in campaigns/projects. I wanted to say a huge thank you but not farewell to the many kind folks who kept my spirits high in the short time I have been with IV:
abhijitp, needhelp, digital2k, paskal, gsc999, waiting4gc, pappu, chanduv23, santb1975, nolaindian32, walking dude, ja1hind, logiclife and many more. All of you rock and America is very lucky to have such genuine and brilliant people like you. I wish you the very best for your own journey.
I will be around for sure, just have to concentrate on securing some work and life for a bit, finally!
my best :)
more...
Hermione
09-27 10:07 AM
The article says: "After all, if the legal process was more efficient and less daunting, perhaps the illegal immigration problems wouldn't be quite so bad."
I say, it is not perhaps, it is a given. When there is a legal remedy for any issue (not just immigration), then 9 out of 10 people would not go the illegal way.
This is very much correct. And it is also the reason to position fixing immigration system as a remedy for both legal and illegal immigration. If you propose a help for legal immigrants, lawmakers are not going to listen to you as much as if you proposed something that fixes both legal immigration and encourages less illegal immigration in the future. It is that simple.
I say, it is not perhaps, it is a given. When there is a legal remedy for any issue (not just immigration), then 9 out of 10 people would not go the illegal way.
This is very much correct. And it is also the reason to position fixing immigration system as a remedy for both legal and illegal immigration. If you propose a help for legal immigrants, lawmakers are not going to listen to you as much as if you proposed something that fixes both legal immigration and encourages less illegal immigration in the future. It is that simple.
hair daughter Alexandria Zahra
malibuguy007
09-16 01:38 PM
House Judiciary Committee MembersBelow or go to the thread mentioned above
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
more...
saileshdude
06-25 12:55 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
As per this memo -
While I-485 can be approved when PD is current, however, it can be denied anytime (does not matter if PD is current or not). The conditions for job offer must be maintained at all times while I-485 is pending.
With this, I am not sure, the defense of PD is not current is going to work.
Here are the questions that I have:
1) As per recent news, a lot of applications are PRE-ADJUDICATED. Now does this mean that those applications will be adjudicated when their PD becomes current , meaning to be approved based on a current PD , does the application has to go through the process of adjudication. Or does it mean adjudication is defined as "processing complete but is independent of PD being current or not" . What does the adjudication means in the above particular context.
2) IN this particular question, the answer does not specifically mean PD being current or not. It only mentions that "need to have job offer when AOS is being adjudicated". If you interpret it this way , then yes PD being current or not does not matter. And you will need to show u have job offer. BUT if definition of adjudication also involves approving the I-485 then one can argue that yes unless ur PD is current u cannot be approved and hence u do not need to have job offer if your PD is current.
I would like to know what various attorneys think about this
As per this memo -
While I-485 can be approved when PD is current, however, it can be denied anytime (does not matter if PD is current or not). The conditions for job offer must be maintained at all times while I-485 is pending.
With this, I am not sure, the defense of PD is not current is going to work.
Here are the questions that I have:
1) As per recent news, a lot of applications are PRE-ADJUDICATED. Now does this mean that those applications will be adjudicated when their PD becomes current , meaning to be approved based on a current PD , does the application has to go through the process of adjudication. Or does it mean adjudication is defined as "processing complete but is independent of PD being current or not" . What does the adjudication means in the above particular context.
2) IN this particular question, the answer does not specifically mean PD being current or not. It only mentions that "need to have job offer when AOS is being adjudicated". If you interpret it this way , then yes PD being current or not does not matter. And you will need to show u have job offer. BUT if definition of adjudication also involves approving the I-485 then one can argue that yes unless ur PD is current u cannot be approved and hence u do not need to have job offer if your PD is current.
I would like to know what various attorneys think about this
hot alexandria zahra jones
JazzByTheBay
10-27 12:52 AM
It's a well-know fact that Senator Kennedy only empathizes with "undocumented workers", and feels they deserve to be given "a path to citizenship" (amnesty by any other name is still amnesty... ) - understandably so given the demographics and numbers.
jazz
I got this as a real paper letter. The signature is a picture, of course, not real.
No surprise here. We are not even a part of immigration reform for him.:mad:
So in this standard reply "about immigration reform" we are not even mentioned.
EDWARD M. KENNEDY
MASSACHUSETTS
Uinited States
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2101
October 9, 2007
Dear Mr. :
Thank you for contacting me about immigration reform. This is a complex issue, with many important aspects, and it requires a comprehensive solution. 12 million undocumented workers are now living in the United States. They're working, paying taxes, and raising children who are U.S. citizens if they are born here. They contribute to our economy, and it is time to bring them out of the shadows and end their unfair exploitation by unscrupulous employers in communities across the country.
Funds for border enforcement have increased dramatically over the years. The budget for the Border Patrol has increased from $263 million in 1990 to $1.6 billion today - a six-fold increase. Yet each year during this period, hundreds of thousands of immigrants have continued to enter the U.S. illegally. Our immigration laws are clearly broken, and stronger border enforcement alone will not fix them.
Long and thorough negotiations with the White House and fellow Senators, Republican and Democrat, led to the drafting of a comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform bill this year. It contained important provisions to strengthen border security, but it also contained needed provisions imposing higher penalties on businesses that employ undocumented immigrants, a temporary worker program to help American businesses meet their employment needs, and provisions to address the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States by allowing them to obtain legal status after undergoing background checks, paying a fine, and going to the back of the line for green cards. The bill was a realistic and comprehensive solution that would not only protect our borders, but also enable needed temporary workers to enter the country legally, and allow workers already here to become legal.
Unfortunately, this needed legislation has now stalled in the Senate, which is enormously disappointing for Congress and the country. But the battle is far from over. I'm in it for the long haul, and Fm certain that, in the end, we will prevail. Ignoring the problem will not solve it. We cannot afford to do nothing, especially in this post-9/11 era. By heritage and history, America is a nation of immigrants, and we must preserve this tradition. I will continue to fight to reform our immigration laws, so that our borders are secure and immigrant families can continue to live the American dream.
Again, thank you for writing to me about this important issue.
Sincerely,
Edward M. Kennedy
jazz
I got this as a real paper letter. The signature is a picture, of course, not real.
No surprise here. We are not even a part of immigration reform for him.:mad:
So in this standard reply "about immigration reform" we are not even mentioned.
EDWARD M. KENNEDY
MASSACHUSETTS
Uinited States
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2101
October 9, 2007
Dear Mr. :
Thank you for contacting me about immigration reform. This is a complex issue, with many important aspects, and it requires a comprehensive solution. 12 million undocumented workers are now living in the United States. They're working, paying taxes, and raising children who are U.S. citizens if they are born here. They contribute to our economy, and it is time to bring them out of the shadows and end their unfair exploitation by unscrupulous employers in communities across the country.
Funds for border enforcement have increased dramatically over the years. The budget for the Border Patrol has increased from $263 million in 1990 to $1.6 billion today - a six-fold increase. Yet each year during this period, hundreds of thousands of immigrants have continued to enter the U.S. illegally. Our immigration laws are clearly broken, and stronger border enforcement alone will not fix them.
Long and thorough negotiations with the White House and fellow Senators, Republican and Democrat, led to the drafting of a comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform bill this year. It contained important provisions to strengthen border security, but it also contained needed provisions imposing higher penalties on businesses that employ undocumented immigrants, a temporary worker program to help American businesses meet their employment needs, and provisions to address the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States by allowing them to obtain legal status after undergoing background checks, paying a fine, and going to the back of the line for green cards. The bill was a realistic and comprehensive solution that would not only protect our borders, but also enable needed temporary workers to enter the country legally, and allow workers already here to become legal.
Unfortunately, this needed legislation has now stalled in the Senate, which is enormously disappointing for Congress and the country. But the battle is far from over. I'm in it for the long haul, and Fm certain that, in the end, we will prevail. Ignoring the problem will not solve it. We cannot afford to do nothing, especially in this post-9/11 era. By heritage and history, America is a nation of immigrants, and we must preserve this tradition. I will continue to fight to reform our immigration laws, so that our borders are secure and immigrant families can continue to live the American dream.
Again, thank you for writing to me about this important issue.
Sincerely,
Edward M. Kennedy
more...
house Gallery | ben lexi jones
freakin_gc
01-31 05:00 PM
Thanks for your time guys...just curious hopefully SB can help me...how do I find out my I-140 subcategory(skilled category or Professional).In my I-140 receipt notice under section it mentioned as Skilled worker or Professional, sec.203(b)(3)A(i) or (ii)
tattoo alexandria
Maverick_2008
02-23 06:43 PM
If we're forced to see the glass half full, delayed 140 processing may actually be good for some people who are about to be laid off and whose 140 is on shaky grounds. It might just buy'em some more time to switch employers and figure out alternatives.
Maverick_2008
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
TSC
485: went from May 24 to April 10, 2007 :(
140: June 23, 2007
NSC
485: July 30, 3007
140: Jan 22, 2007
Maverick_2008
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
TSC
485: went from May 24 to April 10, 2007 :(
140: June 23, 2007
NSC
485: July 30, 3007
140: Jan 22, 2007
more...
pictures Will david robert jones in
shreekarthik
08-08 11:43 AM
Basically, you get 1 credit for a quarter of year, so 4 credits a year. If you have lived and worked 8 full years and 6 months for the year when you came and 6 months the year you depart from the country, you will,be fine. So bottom line is 40 quarters i.e. 10 Years i.e (1 quarter is 3 months) of gainfully employed time and having paid SS Taxes.
It's not per quarter. It's based on your earnings. It was around $4000 per year gross or so for 4 credits. So if u arrived in December and left in Feb with 8 years in between you would be eligible if you get paid $4000 per month.
For a lot of finance information go to http://groups.msn.com/R2IClub. For 401K information, IRA, ROTH etc search google for "RRK Limits". RRK has tonnes and tonnes of info. By planning your departure from USA you can minimize the taxes on 401K. Penalty cannot be avoided.
It's not per quarter. It's based on your earnings. It was around $4000 per year gross or so for 4 credits. So if u arrived in December and left in Feb with 8 years in between you would be eligible if you get paid $4000 per month.
For a lot of finance information go to http://groups.msn.com/R2IClub. For 401K information, IRA, ROTH etc search google for "RRK Limits". RRK has tonnes and tonnes of info. By planning your departure from USA you can minimize the taxes on 401K. Penalty cannot be avoided.
dresses 3x indiana jones fedora~
ajay
11-25 08:06 PM
I contributed $20 to this cause.
more...
makeup daughter Alexandria Zahra
India76
07-17 06:18 PM
PLEASE HELP PLEASE
I am going to India on 19th July as my mothe ris very sick... what should i need to do? i am coming back on 4th august
I am going to India on 19th July as my mothe ris very sick... what should i need to do? i am coming back on 4th august
girlfriend daughter Alexandria Zahra
amitkhare77
09-04 09:54 AM
Question : If I get H1 transferred to NEWEMP (basically work on H1 and NOT EAD), and CURREMP revokes I-140, will this effect my GC process. I intend to work on H1 and keep on renewing EAD based on i-485 filed. NEWEMP will be providing AC21 letter which will be send to USCIS after I join them.
NO, I-485 filing > 180, also the I-140 is approved.
1. Will there be any effect to my GC process in case CURR Company revokes I-140?
No. if you send AC21 letter, you will not receive NOID (you might get RFE)
2. Can I keep on renewing EAD even though I would work on H1 with NewEMP?
Yes
Here is my thought -
If you are on H1B until Dec 2009, you will have to file H1B Extention for 7th Year (I am guessing you are in your second h1B renewal). For any reason if you get denial for I-485, your H1B extention will also be cancelled, remember extention was given to you on the basis of pending I-485 (GC).
so after DEC 2009 , it's the same wheather you are on EAD or H1B Extention.
Let say if you start using EAD now, you will have 1 yr 5 months left on your H1B. if there is something wrong with I-485, you can file H1B from different employer (this will not count against quota, as you have unsed 1 yr 5 month left on your H1B), go out of country and come back on H1B (you have more than 1 year left you can start another GC process :))
just my thought, you might want to validate this with any leagal expert.
NO, I-485 filing > 180, also the I-140 is approved.
1. Will there be any effect to my GC process in case CURR Company revokes I-140?
No. if you send AC21 letter, you will not receive NOID (you might get RFE)
2. Can I keep on renewing EAD even though I would work on H1 with NewEMP?
Yes
Here is my thought -
If you are on H1B until Dec 2009, you will have to file H1B Extention for 7th Year (I am guessing you are in your second h1B renewal). For any reason if you get denial for I-485, your H1B extention will also be cancelled, remember extention was given to you on the basis of pending I-485 (GC).
so after DEC 2009 , it's the same wheather you are on EAD or H1B Extention.
Let say if you start using EAD now, you will have 1 yr 5 months left on your H1B. if there is something wrong with I-485, you can file H1B from different employer (this will not count against quota, as you have unsed 1 yr 5 month left on your H1B), go out of country and come back on H1B (you have more than 1 year left you can start another GC process :))
just my thought, you might want to validate this with any leagal expert.
hairstyles born David Robert Jones on
pns27
06-28 03:26 PM
Did any one heard of EB3 India 485 Approved after June 26? Looks like EB3 visa numbers for this quarter for India is exhausted! If so then who many will be available in next quarter?
When will the 40K unused EB quota of visa numbers will be available /open? In mid September? Can any of the Gurus explain this?
My friend took info-pass and he was told that the EB3 India visa numbers are over for now and his case may be approved in next quota.
Looks like the first 40K in the 485 queue whose processing is done will get there 485�s approved in late September.
For some one like me who files 485 in June chances of approval in this year is less.:confused:
I just want to set the expectations real so that we will not be subjected to perpetual checking of online LUD/Status, forums and also avoid huge disappointment.
Pns27
***********************
Concurrent I-140/I-485: No
PD June 2002-non-RIR
I-140 approved from NSC
I485:--
Mailed to (state NSC/TSC): NSC
Received at (state NSC/TSC): NSC
Receipt Date: 06/07/07
Notice Date: 06/22/07
FP Noticed Received on:?
When will the 40K unused EB quota of visa numbers will be available /open? In mid September? Can any of the Gurus explain this?
My friend took info-pass and he was told that the EB3 India visa numbers are over for now and his case may be approved in next quota.
Looks like the first 40K in the 485 queue whose processing is done will get there 485�s approved in late September.
For some one like me who files 485 in June chances of approval in this year is less.:confused:
I just want to set the expectations real so that we will not be subjected to perpetual checking of online LUD/Status, forums and also avoid huge disappointment.
Pns27
***********************
Concurrent I-140/I-485: No
PD June 2002-non-RIR
I-140 approved from NSC
I485:--
Mailed to (state NSC/TSC): NSC
Received at (state NSC/TSC): NSC
Receipt Date: 06/07/07
Notice Date: 06/22/07
FP Noticed Received on:?
dskhabra
08-13 04:02 PM
What if
India is going to charge
IBM,
Accenture,
EDS,
Microsoft,
Google,
Cisco,
Intel,
Motorola,
Facebook,
Goldman Sachs,
Morgan Stanley,
etc., companies to fund for securing all state borders and states from bomb blasts from terrorists.They do not know how much they want to collect. Still counting , because India had heavy losses because of these blasts.
I am sure India will do something similar if more than 50% employees of these companies are NON-INDIANS....
India is going to charge
IBM,
Accenture,
EDS,
Microsoft,
Google,
Cisco,
Intel,
Motorola,
Facebook,
Goldman Sachs,
Morgan Stanley,
etc., companies to fund for securing all state borders and states from bomb blasts from terrorists.They do not know how much they want to collect. Still counting , because India had heavy losses because of these blasts.
I am sure India will do something similar if more than 50% employees of these companies are NON-INDIANS....
Madhuri
07-18 11:21 AM
I also think that now at least we should think of making IV a paid site. Doubtful people always used to ask for results. IV has given a big answer to all these people. Why not at least make it paid for posting in the forums/starting a new thread?
Can you IM a core and ask them to put a link on main page...
Can you IM a core and ask them to put a link on main page...
No comments:
Post a Comment