seahawks
11-04 01:26 AM
non compete will not allow to work with the same client through a different consulting company.
wallpaper ray ban sunglasses aviator
fatboysam
02-01 08:50 AM
Congrats
rb_248
09-10 03:25 PM
Got the cards in the mail. My online case status says the application is still pending.
Folks (those whose PDs are current this month),
Check with your attorney, in your mail boxes along with the online USCIS case status. You may get the good news in your mail box or from your attorney's office before your status is updated online.
This is what my attorney had to say:
The USCIS online status system is maintained by contract workers and is often inaccurate.
Online status got updated today. Snail mail is faster than email - happens only with USCIS. Anyways, my journey is over. Good luck to others.
Folks (those whose PDs are current this month),
Check with your attorney, in your mail boxes along with the online USCIS case status. You may get the good news in your mail box or from your attorney's office before your status is updated online.
This is what my attorney had to say:
The USCIS online status system is maintained by contract workers and is often inaccurate.
Online status got updated today. Snail mail is faster than email - happens only with USCIS. Anyways, my journey is over. Good luck to others.
2011 hot sell 3025 rayban 3016
juz4forums
07-20 04:10 PM
I and my spouse both have green card. We have a kid who was born in INDIA. He has not visited USA till now. The kid is about 2 years.
We are planning to bring the kid by end of this year to USA.
So what visa should we apply for him we are not sure :confused:
A friend told that he had a baby born to him in india and came to usa with in the 1st 6 month to USA and since both parents were having green card, at port of entry in USA, the kid also got greencard for 5 years this was couple of years back.
But in my case, the kid is 2 years AND also not sure what is the procedure now. Is it still true by default the kids automatically gets the green card at port of entry (Is there any age limit I hope may be till < 13 yrs) if parents posses valid green card. Please help me in this situation.
Thanks in advance, ;)
We are planning to bring the kid by end of this year to USA.
So what visa should we apply for him we are not sure :confused:
A friend told that he had a baby born to him in india and came to usa with in the 1st 6 month to USA and since both parents were having green card, at port of entry in USA, the kid also got greencard for 5 years this was couple of years back.
But in my case, the kid is 2 years AND also not sure what is the procedure now. Is it still true by default the kids automatically gets the green card at port of entry (Is there any age limit I hope may be till < 13 yrs) if parents posses valid green card. Please help me in this situation.
Thanks in advance, ;)
more...
FUNTIMES
08-20 11:08 AM
I am also in the same situation. My GC has been approved on August 5th 2008 and my wife's case is still pending, with no LUD. Did anyone else receive any approval.
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.
more...
gchopes
02-11 10:00 AM
Can one have valid H1B (I-797 only) and then travel on AP and return? This way he / she doesnt have to get a visa for H1B when returning. Any inputs?
2010 ray ban sunglasses 2011 for
WeShallOvercome
11-06 04:11 PM
I see that for EB2 the PD is 01 APR 2004 now. I want to know if I-485 approvals is linked to this PD date or they will work independent to these days.
Thanks,
Sury
-------------------------------
PD : Feb'07
I-140 - Pending
I-131 - Approved
I-485 - Pending
Center: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
Recieved EAD Card and FP done.
-------------------------------
Poor guy/gal just asked a simple question.....
Sury, The PDs need to be current for I-485 filing AS WELL AS approval.
Thanks,
Sury
-------------------------------
PD : Feb'07
I-140 - Pending
I-131 - Approved
I-485 - Pending
Center: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
Recieved EAD Card and FP done.
-------------------------------
Poor guy/gal just asked a simple question.....
Sury, The PDs need to be current for I-485 filing AS WELL AS approval.
more...
leo2606
04-12 02:20 PM
A person I know of did not get paid for about 2 years but this guy went to India for stamping in Delhi.He filed a law suite against his employer before he leaves. He showed all the documents related with the case when asked and got his visa.So I am thinking your reply will not jeopardize your H1B.You have evidence that you moved of this company and filed H1- B transfer knowing the company is bad.
Again you definetly need to consult an attorney like Murthy or Khanna to talk about this.I think you can get immediate consultation if you call their office, obviously they charge.I think it is worth spending so that you will not have mental tension.
Again you definetly need to consult an attorney like Murthy or Khanna to talk about this.I think you can get immediate consultation if you call their office, obviously they charge.I think it is worth spending so that you will not have mental tension.
hair 10 Pcs Ray Ban Aviator
bluez25
10-28 07:26 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21572&highlight=leaving
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
more...
aviv
10-01 11:46 AM
Once your Priority date of a category is current and namechecks are cleared, it is First in first out within the country quota. At that time, earlier priority dates do not matter at all. What matters is how early you applied for your I485 (date the application was physically received by the center, and not the date a notice was sent).
Not sure how much, but PDs do matter. My is EB2 / India /July 2003 and thimgs are moving fast. I am a TSC 2nd july filer. Got my EADs, AP, fingerprint doen, LUDs etc
Also, they messed up my first EAD appl by putting down Country of Birth as USA so I reapplied on 9/14, checks were cashed on 9/19 and Card production ordered on 9/28. I'm no expert but looking at others in the same scanrio mine seems to be moving, maybe its because of the pirority date?
Not sure how much, but PDs do matter. My is EB2 / India /July 2003 and thimgs are moving fast. I am a TSC 2nd july filer. Got my EADs, AP, fingerprint doen, LUDs etc
Also, they messed up my first EAD appl by putting down Country of Birth as USA so I reapplied on 9/14, checks were cashed on 9/19 and Card production ordered on 9/28. I'm no expert but looking at others in the same scanrio mine seems to be moving, maybe its because of the pirority date?
hot Tomray-an sunglasses are
asharda
07-13 10:47 AM
Its a good idea but make sure you guyz are comfortable. It must be hot out there.
Have every one wear white as the color of peace/silent protest/sadness.
Have every one wear white as the color of peace/silent protest/sadness.
more...
house That should be to say Ray ban in Ray Ban Warrior Sunglasses.
ngopalak
10-14 11:14 PM
Thanks for the info....sounds like a good idea!....I will ask my lawyer abt this...
You can go visit India after your AP has been applied for, and you can ask your lawyer ( if you are using one ) to send the docs to you in India , so that you can come back with the new approved AP, off course you can't enter USA on an expired AP.
My lawyer has confirmed that one is only required to be present in the USA when applying and it's recommended that one is in US when it's approved, but due to the varying time USCIS is taking to process AP applications that is not a requirement and they can forward the documents to someone not in US.
You can go visit India after your AP has been applied for, and you can ask your lawyer ( if you are using one ) to send the docs to you in India , so that you can come back with the new approved AP, off course you can't enter USA on an expired AP.
My lawyer has confirmed that one is only required to be present in the USA when applying and it's recommended that one is in US when it's approved, but due to the varying time USCIS is taking to process AP applications that is not a requirement and they can forward the documents to someone not in US.
tattoo ray ban sunglasses frame
rajeevkaza
10-31 01:12 PM
where did you see these 30/45 days numbers? you can apply an H1 extension upto 180 days in advance of the expiry of your current H1 (basically 180 days before the new start-date)
Let me clarify you guys, 180 days advance to expiry is good, I am referring to applying in the last minute, ideally it should be atleast 30 days ahead of expiry date in order to avoid the complications.
Secondly I am referring to applying for H1B Extension AFTER Expiry date which is good for 45 days. Hope you got it now.
Let me clarify you guys, 180 days advance to expiry is good, I am referring to applying in the last minute, ideally it should be atleast 30 days ahead of expiry date in order to avoid the complications.
Secondly I am referring to applying for H1B Extension AFTER Expiry date which is good for 45 days. Hope you got it now.
more...
pictures ray ban glasses uk.
intheyan
03-31 11:27 PM
yes u can
dresses ray ban sunglasses wayfarer.
quizzer
10-23 04:28 PM
Libra,
Congrats!!! Did it take an year for the RFE itself???
Romesh and naresh,
Any updates?
thanks,
Congrats!!! Did it take an year for the RFE itself???
Romesh and naresh,
Any updates?
thanks,
more...
makeup ray ban glasses case.
CRAZYMONK
07-20 09:01 AM
All they can do is stop your salary and not re leave you from the duties. Also the day you put in your papers, they might cancel your H1B, which jeopardizes your status. So prepare for this. File the H1 B first get the approval then quit. These days it is very hard to get the H1b Transfer done.
They can't do any thing else. All the best.
Hello Sir/Madam,
I badly need some advice with regards to a policy which i have in my current employment deputation letter for working in US.
A brief info about me :
1. I'm basically an employee of Wipro, India deputed in US on H1B.
2. As part of this travel, there is a mandatory clause to accept certain policies of wipro ensuring that i do not move out of wipro in USA without giving a 2 months notice and also a liquidity damages of 4,20,000 INR equivalent to 10,000 $.
My current issue :
1. Its been about 2 yrs that i've been serving for Wipro in US and now in a state where i want to move out. I got a pretty good offer from another company that augurs well for my future.
2. I Can give only 3 weeks of notice.
Advice needed :
1. Can i leave now with 3 weeks notice knowing that i had mandatorily signed the policy of wipro in india before coming over to USA.
2. What are the legal implications of this? If wipro serves a notice do i need to reply to that knowing that as per H1B labor laws of USCIS, a company cannot force anybody to give a notice period of more than 2 weeks?
Your suggestions will do a world of good to me. Thank you in advance.
Regards,
Ineedhelp
They can't do any thing else. All the best.
Hello Sir/Madam,
I badly need some advice with regards to a policy which i have in my current employment deputation letter for working in US.
A brief info about me :
1. I'm basically an employee of Wipro, India deputed in US on H1B.
2. As part of this travel, there is a mandatory clause to accept certain policies of wipro ensuring that i do not move out of wipro in USA without giving a 2 months notice and also a liquidity damages of 4,20,000 INR equivalent to 10,000 $.
My current issue :
1. Its been about 2 yrs that i've been serving for Wipro in US and now in a state where i want to move out. I got a pretty good offer from another company that augurs well for my future.
2. I Can give only 3 weeks of notice.
Advice needed :
1. Can i leave now with 3 weeks notice knowing that i had mandatorily signed the policy of wipro in india before coming over to USA.
2. What are the legal implications of this? If wipro serves a notice do i need to reply to that knowing that as per H1B labor laws of USCIS, a company cannot force anybody to give a notice period of more than 2 weeks?
Your suggestions will do a world of good to me. Thank you in advance.
Regards,
Ineedhelp
girlfriend 4099 Ray Ban Sunglasses,+4099
sina
04-16 10:28 AM
Hi Hope2007,
Did you talk to your attorney? How were you able to do so?
My attorney says I can do so, I have asked him how.
Our corporate office handles all and I do not have any information about this. I hope my attorney is correct and I do not find myself in trouble after I change location.
Please post hope2007 if you know how this is possible.
Thanks
Did you talk to your attorney? How were you able to do so?
My attorney says I can do so, I have asked him how.
Our corporate office handles all and I do not have any information about this. I hope my attorney is correct and I do not find myself in trouble after I change location.
Please post hope2007 if you know how this is possible.
Thanks
hairstyles ray ban sunglasses wayfarer.
laborpains
03-18 08:21 AM
Isn't EAD for unrestricted employment as long as your primary job is similar to what was in the labor application?
What if the one's priority date becomes current and USCIS asks for proof of employment? Wouldn't the application be denied?
Hello,
My 2-cents:
1. Your EAD is for unrestricted employment till the AOS is resolved (so, it is not tied to your labor petition)
2. Your AP is a travel document to allow you to travel while AOS is pending (again, not tied to employment)
As such, for all legal purposes, you should be able to pursue education full time. However, any IO at entry post has authority to ask you questions beyond what is legally required, which many a times, includes 'are you still employed with the petitioner'.
This is the tricky part... if the IO has good knowledge of the laws, he would let you in 'cause your petition is for the future job, but a wrong IO can twist and turn the laws to suit his/her point of view and land you in unnecessary trouble.
However, in 99% of the cases, the trouble may mean a few more anxious hours at the port of entry and nothing more. Hope you are able to pursue your education, all the best! :)
What if the one's priority date becomes current and USCIS asks for proof of employment? Wouldn't the application be denied?
Hello,
My 2-cents:
1. Your EAD is for unrestricted employment till the AOS is resolved (so, it is not tied to your labor petition)
2. Your AP is a travel document to allow you to travel while AOS is pending (again, not tied to employment)
As such, for all legal purposes, you should be able to pursue education full time. However, any IO at entry post has authority to ask you questions beyond what is legally required, which many a times, includes 'are you still employed with the petitioner'.
This is the tricky part... if the IO has good knowledge of the laws, he would let you in 'cause your petition is for the future job, but a wrong IO can twist and turn the laws to suit his/her point of view and land you in unnecessary trouble.
However, in 99% of the cases, the trouble may mean a few more anxious hours at the port of entry and nothing more. Hope you are able to pursue your education, all the best! :)
amsgc
04-02 08:27 PM
Hi Bhayzone,
Allow me to help you a bit here...
First of all, there is no such thing as a H-1B transfer. When you change jobs, the new employer files a "new petition" with the USCIS requesting that:
1) The new application should not be counted against the yearly H-1B cap.
2) Your current H-1B status be "extended" in the US
3) Your wife's H4 status be "extended" in the US
Only your wife's H4 status is dependent on your H-1B status. If your wife changes her status to F1, then your H-1B status has no bearing at all on her F1. You could even go back to your home country and stay there while your wife completes her education on F1 :)
I think the answer to your first two questions is in the above discussion. As for the third, I would personally wait to have the H-1B and H4 extensions approved, before applying for change from H4 to F1.
All this is doable because you can:
1) Use premium processing (2 weeks) for your new H1 and wife's extended H4 (at the same time). Note that you are legally allowed to pay the premium processing fee of $1000.
2) School doesn't start until the begining of July, which gives your wife enough time to change her status from H4 to F1.
Just so you know, your wife can attend school on H4 also. It helps to know this if the F1 doesn't go through. But, IMHO, it is better to be on F1 than H4 on any given day!
Good luck!
Ams
Hi,
My wife is on an H4 and we're planning to change her status to F1.
Now my H1, thus her H4 is up for renewal soon (I have another 3 yrs on my H1).
I will very soon be transferring my H1 to a new company.
I am worried about the implications this might have on the H4 to F1 transfer.
1] When my new company transfers the H1, will they also file for renewal? Or will they only transfer and later renew seperately.
2] Assuming that we change the current H4 to F1, then will we have to renew the F1 too when my wife's H4 is transferred (due to my H1 transfer).
3] Is it better to transfer to F1 from the current H4 , or wait for the new H4 for the transfer.
All advice/suggestion would be really appreciated.
Allow me to help you a bit here...
First of all, there is no such thing as a H-1B transfer. When you change jobs, the new employer files a "new petition" with the USCIS requesting that:
1) The new application should not be counted against the yearly H-1B cap.
2) Your current H-1B status be "extended" in the US
3) Your wife's H4 status be "extended" in the US
Only your wife's H4 status is dependent on your H-1B status. If your wife changes her status to F1, then your H-1B status has no bearing at all on her F1. You could even go back to your home country and stay there while your wife completes her education on F1 :)
I think the answer to your first two questions is in the above discussion. As for the third, I would personally wait to have the H-1B and H4 extensions approved, before applying for change from H4 to F1.
All this is doable because you can:
1) Use premium processing (2 weeks) for your new H1 and wife's extended H4 (at the same time). Note that you are legally allowed to pay the premium processing fee of $1000.
2) School doesn't start until the begining of July, which gives your wife enough time to change her status from H4 to F1.
Just so you know, your wife can attend school on H4 also. It helps to know this if the F1 doesn't go through. But, IMHO, it is better to be on F1 than H4 on any given day!
Good luck!
Ams
Hi,
My wife is on an H4 and we're planning to change her status to F1.
Now my H1, thus her H4 is up for renewal soon (I have another 3 yrs on my H1).
I will very soon be transferring my H1 to a new company.
I am worried about the implications this might have on the H4 to F1 transfer.
1] When my new company transfers the H1, will they also file for renewal? Or will they only transfer and later renew seperately.
2] Assuming that we change the current H4 to F1, then will we have to renew the F1 too when my wife's H4 is transferred (due to my H1 transfer).
3] Is it better to transfer to F1 from the current H4 , or wait for the new H4 for the transfer.
All advice/suggestion would be really appreciated.
dollar500
04-09 08:50 PM
Thanks all.
No comments:
Post a Comment