raysaikat
05-07 09:27 AM
I am holding J-1 student visa (academic training) from 8/2007 and will be expired on 7/31/2010, sponsor by U of Colorado. I am working as a postdoc for a project funded by NIH until 2013 at VCU. My advisor want to change my visa category from J-1 student to J-1 scholar, sponsor by VCU, to continue the project.
According to an international advisor at VCU where I am applying J-1 scholar, I cannot change from J-1 student to J-1 scholar due to 12-month bar:
[Time spent in the United States in any J status (including J-2 status) during the 12-month period preceding the prospective professor or research scholar's program begin date may affect the alien's eligibility for participation as a Professor or Research Scholar.
22 C.F.R. � 62.20(d)(2) establishes what is referred to as the "12-month bar." The general proposition of the 12-month bar is that an alien is not eligible to begin an exchange program as a Professor or Research Scholar based on a DS-2019 issued "to begin a new program" if he or she was physically present in any J status (including J-2 status) for "all or part of" the "twelve month period immediately preceding the date of program commencement set forth on his or her Form DS-2019." ]
But according to an international advisor at University of Colorado (my current sponsor for J1 student) that the 12-month bar is not applicable for me due to exception:
[(A) J-1 transfers. The 12 month bar is not applicable to those who will begin a program by transferring to a new program sponsor under the transfer procedures of 22 C.F.R. � 62.42 ;
22 C.F.R. � 62.20(d)(2)(i) ]
Who is right? What should I do? :confused:
I appreciate any help !!!
Looks like the determining point is whether it is a "transfer" of a "new program". Since you are going from "student" to "post-doc", the safer interpretation is that it is a "new program". But you may try to argue that it a "transfer". Read the corresponding CFR's -- they are reasonably clear (google will give you the texts). For instance, this is what is "transfer":
TITLE 22--FOREIGN RELATIONS
CHAPTER V--UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY
PART 514--EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM--Table of Contents
Subpart C--Status of Exchange Visitors
Sec. 514.42 Transfer of program.
(a) Program sponsors may, pursuant to the provisions set forth in
this section, permit an exchange visitor to transfer from one designated
program to another designated program.
(b) The responsible officer of the program to which the exchange
visitor is transferring:
(1) Shall verify the exchange visitor's visa status and program
eligibility;
(2) Execute the Form IAP-66; and
(3) Secure the written release of the current sponsor.
(c) Upon return of the completed Form IAP-66, the responsible
officer of the program to which the exchange visitor has transferred
shall provide:
(1) The exchange visitor his or her copy of the Form IAP-66; and
(2) A notification copy of such form to the Agency.
According to an international advisor at VCU where I am applying J-1 scholar, I cannot change from J-1 student to J-1 scholar due to 12-month bar:
[Time spent in the United States in any J status (including J-2 status) during the 12-month period preceding the prospective professor or research scholar's program begin date may affect the alien's eligibility for participation as a Professor or Research Scholar.
22 C.F.R. � 62.20(d)(2) establishes what is referred to as the "12-month bar." The general proposition of the 12-month bar is that an alien is not eligible to begin an exchange program as a Professor or Research Scholar based on a DS-2019 issued "to begin a new program" if he or she was physically present in any J status (including J-2 status) for "all or part of" the "twelve month period immediately preceding the date of program commencement set forth on his or her Form DS-2019." ]
But according to an international advisor at University of Colorado (my current sponsor for J1 student) that the 12-month bar is not applicable for me due to exception:
[(A) J-1 transfers. The 12 month bar is not applicable to those who will begin a program by transferring to a new program sponsor under the transfer procedures of 22 C.F.R. � 62.42 ;
22 C.F.R. � 62.20(d)(2)(i) ]
Who is right? What should I do? :confused:
I appreciate any help !!!
Looks like the determining point is whether it is a "transfer" of a "new program". Since you are going from "student" to "post-doc", the safer interpretation is that it is a "new program". But you may try to argue that it a "transfer". Read the corresponding CFR's -- they are reasonably clear (google will give you the texts). For instance, this is what is "transfer":
TITLE 22--FOREIGN RELATIONS
CHAPTER V--UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY
PART 514--EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM--Table of Contents
Subpart C--Status of Exchange Visitors
Sec. 514.42 Transfer of program.
(a) Program sponsors may, pursuant to the provisions set forth in
this section, permit an exchange visitor to transfer from one designated
program to another designated program.
(b) The responsible officer of the program to which the exchange
visitor is transferring:
(1) Shall verify the exchange visitor's visa status and program
eligibility;
(2) Execute the Form IAP-66; and
(3) Secure the written release of the current sponsor.
(c) Upon return of the completed Form IAP-66, the responsible
officer of the program to which the exchange visitor has transferred
shall provide:
(1) The exchange visitor his or her copy of the Form IAP-66; and
(2) A notification copy of such form to the Agency.
wallpaper CITROEN C1 SPLASH
eb_retrogession
03-26 08:02 PM
It is the policy of Immigration Voice NOT to criticize anybody's opinions or views by any media outlet. We beleive that everyone is entitled to their position on any given issue.
We have received very critical remarks from certain journalists about offensive messages sent by writers referencing Immigration Voice. IV has a dedicated media relations team that responds to relevant articles, as appropriate and ONLY such responses will be considered official communications from IV. If you want to join the effort, please send a note to sunil@immigrationvoice.org and your help would be a welcome.
However, we request that any personal responses, especially with offensive language, not to reference IV that will show us in a bad light.
Thank You for your understanding.
We have received very critical remarks from certain journalists about offensive messages sent by writers referencing Immigration Voice. IV has a dedicated media relations team that responds to relevant articles, as appropriate and ONLY such responses will be considered official communications from IV. If you want to join the effort, please send a note to sunil@immigrationvoice.org and your help would be a welcome.
However, we request that any personal responses, especially with offensive language, not to reference IV that will show us in a bad light.
Thank You for your understanding.
GCard_Dream
06-29 03:58 PM
It is a shady practice. The main reason an employer wouldn't give you a copy of a I-140 is that if you were to leave company A and company B sponsors you for GC, you can keep your old priority date. But that is only possible if you can furnish a copy of approved I-140 to INS. It is such a stupid practice on part of INS to request the petitioner to provide a copy of something (like I-140) that they themselves approved and should already have a record of. But I don't think anyone expects any better from INS anyway.
I agree that it is a employer driven petition but the employer purposely holds the information back so that they have more control over the employees decision making ( specially if the employee is thinking about leaving the company).
This is not a shady practice. The employer had petitioned for a labor certification earlier to sponsor GC for an employee who might have left the company. Now they filled the position with you, so its perfectly alright to use the same petition for you.
As far as the documents are concerned, they are employer centric and they have no reason to give them to you. You will have nothing to do with those even if you get them. If the only purpose you want to solve is to know whether or not your labor and I40 were infact approved as your employer says, you should request your employer to show you a copy.
The copies are wothless to you if you leave the company anyways, before you get an EAD.
Don't heed the advise of people who ask you to find a better employer. Such people are only trying to get their own GCs faster, since there will be one less person with an earlier priority date.
I agree that it is a employer driven petition but the employer purposely holds the information back so that they have more control over the employees decision making ( specially if the employee is thinking about leaving the company).
This is not a shady practice. The employer had petitioned for a labor certification earlier to sponsor GC for an employee who might have left the company. Now they filled the position with you, so its perfectly alright to use the same petition for you.
As far as the documents are concerned, they are employer centric and they have no reason to give them to you. You will have nothing to do with those even if you get them. If the only purpose you want to solve is to know whether or not your labor and I40 were infact approved as your employer says, you should request your employer to show you a copy.
The copies are wothless to you if you leave the company anyways, before you get an EAD.
Don't heed the advise of people who ask you to find a better employer. Such people are only trying to get their own GCs faster, since there will be one less person with an earlier priority date.
2011 Used White Citroen C1 SPLASH
mermaid2084
11-21 02:52 PM
While I was travelling from India to USA, I was waiting at one of the airports in USA for my connection. An airlines staff asked for my passport and by mistake pulled away my
I-94 from from it. May be I was mistaken with the other passengers that
might be travelling out side US. The officer looked at my boarding pass for the next flight
(which was for the flight going to a city in USA), however, he didnt realized and by mistake he took away I-94 from
my passport (he was doing that for other passengers too so I thought it was part of the process).
I didnt knew that it needs to be preserved till I leave the USA. I know that in case of lost/stolen I-94 I need to file I-102. However, I doubt that in my case it might have reached the USCIS.
Please help me. I am very much worried.
I-94 from from it. May be I was mistaken with the other passengers that
might be travelling out side US. The officer looked at my boarding pass for the next flight
(which was for the flight going to a city in USA), however, he didnt realized and by mistake he took away I-94 from
my passport (he was doing that for other passengers too so I thought it was part of the process).
I didnt knew that it needs to be preserved till I leave the USA. I know that in case of lost/stolen I-94 I need to file I-102. However, I doubt that in my case it might have reached the USCIS.
Please help me. I am very much worried.
more...
Googler
07-20 12:53 AM
But this won't be easy "Do you want us to compromise on national security", will be the first question asked . They will acknowledge the applicants pain and won't budge . "We know thousands like you are getting screwed for many years, but national security is foremost'.
Man, these forums are getting chaotic -- we need a reorganization so that duplicative threads are avoided. Namecheck probably needs its own subforum.
I didn't want to re-post what I said in the name check sticky thread, so here is a link http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=126248&postcount=351.
As for the argument that the name check process enhances national security that is not really true.
(a) how is national security enhanced by having someone sit around renewing their EAD hanging out in the country year after year -- they should really be hurrying if they are so worried about the risk we pose.
(b) there is considerable internal debate about the usefulness of the "reference file" part of the check; the part that causes these huge delays. Read the name check section of the Ombudsmans 2007 report.
(c) if national security is being preserved by this process why isn't it fully funded through appropriations?? Surely catching a terrorist is worth more than the $2 per application that USCIS pays FBI.
(d) if national security is being preserved by this process, then why is FBI complaining (see recent press reports) that only 30 analysts are available for this reference file part of the analysis?
(e) Sec. Chertoff is always yammering on about "risk based" national security policy -- the FBI namecheck process is the opposite of risk based policy. See Ombudsman's 2007 report again.
Also note that 8 USC 1571 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001571----000-.html) states very clearly that "It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application". Congress did not intend that the process should stretch on for years upon years. 8 USC 1571 was not stricken after the new name check guidelines were put into place.
These are all points that we have to hammer on -- to the press, to congress to absolutely everyone who says hi to us.
This should be a campaign as large as the one for the visa bulletin fiasco because the effect of the FBI Name Check is as devastating if not more devastating than the visa bulletin fiasco.
All these years we had no choice but to believe the BS that was trotted out by FBI (google Cannon, Garrity testimony) about how most records were done by the time you made your morning coffee, what are you thowing a tantrum about my lovely etc. I really sat up when I read the 2007 Ombudsmans report which finally provided data to support what so many people had been complaining about for years. Now no one can deny that the scale of the problem is unpardonably large.
Man, these forums are getting chaotic -- we need a reorganization so that duplicative threads are avoided. Namecheck probably needs its own subforum.
I didn't want to re-post what I said in the name check sticky thread, so here is a link http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=126248&postcount=351.
As for the argument that the name check process enhances national security that is not really true.
(a) how is national security enhanced by having someone sit around renewing their EAD hanging out in the country year after year -- they should really be hurrying if they are so worried about the risk we pose.
(b) there is considerable internal debate about the usefulness of the "reference file" part of the check; the part that causes these huge delays. Read the name check section of the Ombudsmans 2007 report.
(c) if national security is being preserved by this process why isn't it fully funded through appropriations?? Surely catching a terrorist is worth more than the $2 per application that USCIS pays FBI.
(d) if national security is being preserved by this process, then why is FBI complaining (see recent press reports) that only 30 analysts are available for this reference file part of the analysis?
(e) Sec. Chertoff is always yammering on about "risk based" national security policy -- the FBI namecheck process is the opposite of risk based policy. See Ombudsman's 2007 report again.
Also note that 8 USC 1571 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001571----000-.html) states very clearly that "It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application". Congress did not intend that the process should stretch on for years upon years. 8 USC 1571 was not stricken after the new name check guidelines were put into place.
These are all points that we have to hammer on -- to the press, to congress to absolutely everyone who says hi to us.
This should be a campaign as large as the one for the visa bulletin fiasco because the effect of the FBI Name Check is as devastating if not more devastating than the visa bulletin fiasco.
All these years we had no choice but to believe the BS that was trotted out by FBI (google Cannon, Garrity testimony) about how most records were done by the time you made your morning coffee, what are you thowing a tantrum about my lovely etc. I really sat up when I read the 2007 Ombudsmans report which finally provided data to support what so many people had been complaining about for years. Now no one can deny that the scale of the problem is unpardonably large.
abracadabra102
08-24 08:34 PM
Nothing new here. It was denied as per existing law. If original I-140 is un-approavable, ac21 can not help.
more...
mayhemt
07-03 02:18 AM
Here's an idea that came up in my head:
There's no use working 'towards' EB wait period issues, there will always be thorns in the roses.. Lets work 'against' EB advantages (superficially) - well this could be in parallel to 'towards' part.
Here's the agenda, that administration/congress would need to implement in law :
"Restrict/Prohibit all non-immigrant class workers (H1, L1 etc) from investing, be it 401k, IRAs, Regular stock investing, Real Estate investing, Forex etc"
(Before you all start bashing this, let me put down some pros & cons)...
Pros:
1. People (with immigrant intent) will not be in limbo. if you want to move back after living 5-6 yrs in US, there's nothing to pay penalty on. Today there's an early withdrawal penalty on 401K, IRA.
Like many of us - who applied for 140/485 waiting endlessly for the magic card.... investing our dear hard earned money in 401ks & other investment vehicles - only to see them lose value or worse stuck in that vehicle (Of course there's another school of thought that says if I invested 10k in 401k, & net value is now 20k & even if I withdraw it paying penalty, I will be in green..but i guess this demographic will be significantly small). My colleagues & I too procrastinated about moving back to India - but since we still have to recover our 401k/IRA losses we have been pushing the magic year a little further - but thats just me.
2. Markets/Businesses will realize the sudden disappearance of funds coming into market because of this new law & Market forces might lobby towards faster Immigrant status changes - remember this law is only for non-immigrants, Permanent residents would have no restrictions on investments.
3. We (IV community) need not work diligently on this issue. We might just have to create some numbers on folks who made good amount of money in speculating oil/natural gas/gold and driving these prices like crazy OR who have been sending profits on investments to their home country. If we at least get this ball roll, anti-immigrants like numbersusa will pick up this agenda & work 'with' us..
4. Home country flourishes.. 401k has an annual limit of 15.5k $ for 2008, 16.5K $ for 2009). Assuming 250K non-immigrants (H1s, L1s) restricted to invest, yearly 3Billion USD just disappears from markets & at least a small percentage would find its way to home country. This is just 401K. If we add IRAs and regular trading accounts, Real Estate.... Wall Street would crap in their pants - they need our money to drive their Ferraris, Lambos you know!! If Wall Street says something, Capitol Hill HAS to listen.
Cons:
1. H1s L1s wont be able to reap profits in investments. Hey at least you wont be losing your money. This is like a pseudo protection of your money if you have H1, L1 cards. Who knows? This might create huge demand for people wanting to convert from EB2/EB3 to H1 :)
If you all see any other sides of this story, you know where to find that 'reply' button.
Disclaimer: I am not looking to crash markets - just trying to leverage our situation with that of markets, with anti-immigrant groups' position as catalyst.
There's no use working 'towards' EB wait period issues, there will always be thorns in the roses.. Lets work 'against' EB advantages (superficially) - well this could be in parallel to 'towards' part.
Here's the agenda, that administration/congress would need to implement in law :
"Restrict/Prohibit all non-immigrant class workers (H1, L1 etc) from investing, be it 401k, IRAs, Regular stock investing, Real Estate investing, Forex etc"
(Before you all start bashing this, let me put down some pros & cons)...
Pros:
1. People (with immigrant intent) will not be in limbo. if you want to move back after living 5-6 yrs in US, there's nothing to pay penalty on. Today there's an early withdrawal penalty on 401K, IRA.
Like many of us - who applied for 140/485 waiting endlessly for the magic card.... investing our dear hard earned money in 401ks & other investment vehicles - only to see them lose value or worse stuck in that vehicle (Of course there's another school of thought that says if I invested 10k in 401k, & net value is now 20k & even if I withdraw it paying penalty, I will be in green..but i guess this demographic will be significantly small). My colleagues & I too procrastinated about moving back to India - but since we still have to recover our 401k/IRA losses we have been pushing the magic year a little further - but thats just me.
2. Markets/Businesses will realize the sudden disappearance of funds coming into market because of this new law & Market forces might lobby towards faster Immigrant status changes - remember this law is only for non-immigrants, Permanent residents would have no restrictions on investments.
3. We (IV community) need not work diligently on this issue. We might just have to create some numbers on folks who made good amount of money in speculating oil/natural gas/gold and driving these prices like crazy OR who have been sending profits on investments to their home country. If we at least get this ball roll, anti-immigrants like numbersusa will pick up this agenda & work 'with' us..
4. Home country flourishes.. 401k has an annual limit of 15.5k $ for 2008, 16.5K $ for 2009). Assuming 250K non-immigrants (H1s, L1s) restricted to invest, yearly 3Billion USD just disappears from markets & at least a small percentage would find its way to home country. This is just 401K. If we add IRAs and regular trading accounts, Real Estate.... Wall Street would crap in their pants - they need our money to drive their Ferraris, Lambos you know!! If Wall Street says something, Capitol Hill HAS to listen.
Cons:
1. H1s L1s wont be able to reap profits in investments. Hey at least you wont be losing your money. This is like a pseudo protection of your money if you have H1, L1 cards. Who knows? This might create huge demand for people wanting to convert from EB2/EB3 to H1 :)
If you all see any other sides of this story, you know where to find that 'reply' button.
Disclaimer: I am not looking to crash markets - just trying to leverage our situation with that of markets, with anti-immigrant groups' position as catalyst.
2010 Citroen C1 CITROEN C1 1.0i
iamvenkat
06-20 01:23 PM
I was working for company A as a Title X through H1 B visa
And company A filed my GC sponsorship petition with title Y and I-140 cleared.
I resigned company A for job Title X and joined company B (H1 transfer) (I did not rejected or asked him to cancel my EB based GC petition)
But Company A revoked my EB based sponsored petition.
Is there a legal right for me to ask why did he revokes my EB based sponsorship petition when I have not rejected his offer for GC Title Y
Please clarify
And company A filed my GC sponsorship petition with title Y and I-140 cleared.
I resigned company A for job Title X and joined company B (H1 transfer) (I did not rejected or asked him to cancel my EB based GC petition)
But Company A revoked my EB based sponsored petition.
Is there a legal right for me to ask why did he revokes my EB based sponsorship petition when I have not rejected his offer for GC Title Y
Please clarify
more...
gc_peshwa
01-26 06:55 PM
Well done team IV! BTW has IV already published this email to newspapers? IIRC a free site like PRNEWSWIRE will also help :-)
hair Citroen C1 1.0i Splash, BLUE,
Prashanthi
07-30 06:25 PM
My kids and I got our I485 (EB2 I PD 2005) approval in July 2008 and my wife's case was sent for Interview which we attended in December when they asked to redo the medicals. Medicals were submitted to them after which the case has gone "dead".
Questions :
1. What is the Immigration status of my wife during this time? Her H4 (which would have been nulled due to my AOS anyway) in December.
She has Advance Parole and EAD but everyday we are worried about challenges ranging from not being able to buy life insurance for her at competitive rates (she has been declined due to THIS immigration status), Drivers license renewal coming up. We havent been able to travel freely as a family outside the country due to the fact that AP is for emergency travel only.
2. What will happen to her case if something happens and I pass away while she is waiting?
3. Do I have to wait for my earlier PD (2005) to become current again before she gets approval. The way it is going with retrogression my kids and I may get citizenship before she gets her greencard.
4. Will writing to a congressman / senator help? It is really having a significant impact on our lives as a virtually "broken family".
Your help would be much appreciated.
First of all, lets hope nothing happens to you. At this time i suggest waiting, something might come up later this year or early next year with reference to making use of unused visa numbers, if this happens, your wifes date will become current and her I-485 will get approved. Unfortunately the petition dies with the petitioner. However in the case of family based I-130 petitions, The Attorney General may in his discretion reinstate the approval of your family-based visa. The Attorney General may exercise favorable discretion where "for humanitarian reasons revocation would be inappropriate." 8 C.RR. Sec. 205.1(a)(3)(i)(C).
Questions :
1. What is the Immigration status of my wife during this time? Her H4 (which would have been nulled due to my AOS anyway) in December.
She has Advance Parole and EAD but everyday we are worried about challenges ranging from not being able to buy life insurance for her at competitive rates (she has been declined due to THIS immigration status), Drivers license renewal coming up. We havent been able to travel freely as a family outside the country due to the fact that AP is for emergency travel only.
2. What will happen to her case if something happens and I pass away while she is waiting?
3. Do I have to wait for my earlier PD (2005) to become current again before she gets approval. The way it is going with retrogression my kids and I may get citizenship before she gets her greencard.
4. Will writing to a congressman / senator help? It is really having a significant impact on our lives as a virtually "broken family".
Your help would be much appreciated.
First of all, lets hope nothing happens to you. At this time i suggest waiting, something might come up later this year or early next year with reference to making use of unused visa numbers, if this happens, your wifes date will become current and her I-485 will get approved. Unfortunately the petition dies with the petitioner. However in the case of family based I-130 petitions, The Attorney General may in his discretion reinstate the approval of your family-based visa. The Attorney General may exercise favorable discretion where "for humanitarian reasons revocation would be inappropriate." 8 C.RR. Sec. 205.1(a)(3)(i)(C).
more...
Queen Josephine
August 9th, 2005, 07:42 AM
I am trained as a physicist, and crossed polarizers are a common method of managing light in physics experiments, so I decided to try that here.
You can't use circular polarizers like most of us have for our autofocus DSLRs. Stacked C-polarizers don't black out, because they are both filtering the same light.
With two polarizers you get weird rainbow effects from diffraction, and the whole scene tends to the purple/UV.
Always nice to have a scientist on board seeing possibilities we sometimes miss. Thanks for the great explanation Michael!
You can't use circular polarizers like most of us have for our autofocus DSLRs. Stacked C-polarizers don't black out, because they are both filtering the same light.
With two polarizers you get weird rainbow effects from diffraction, and the whole scene tends to the purple/UV.
Always nice to have a scientist on board seeing possibilities we sometimes miss. Thanks for the great explanation Michael!
hot Citroen C1 Splash
Macaca
07-11 05:17 PM
Hi Friends, I came to know about this protest and would like to pass on the information about the protest to Indian Student Assocaition [strength over 600 active members] at San Jose state University and possible Santa Clara University. I am sure my fellow students will be proud to contribute to the indian community. So, Kindly let me know more details ASAP becuase its already wednesday. My email is sampathg4@yahoo.com
Please post this info for ALL international students.
Please post this info for ALL international students.
more...
house White Citroen C1 Splash .
psaxena
06-29 06:56 PM
As per H1B you cannot do this.. the second job will be illegal
Hello,
Forum Gurus, i have a basic question. Currently i'm employed by a corporation and working full time for them under H1B. Now, i want to work for additional company as part time (approx. 20 hrs/week). This company cannot give me cash but only check. Is it possible to file additional H1B just for this company and start working for them under this new H1B?
My current status is: H1B approved with current company and I-140 approved.
Also, if the answer to my question above is yes, then could this affect my current H1B and approved I-140 in any ways. Thanks in advance.
Hello,
Forum Gurus, i have a basic question. Currently i'm employed by a corporation and working full time for them under H1B. Now, i want to work for additional company as part time (approx. 20 hrs/week). This company cannot give me cash but only check. Is it possible to file additional H1B just for this company and start working for them under this new H1B?
My current status is: H1B approved with current company and I-140 approved.
Also, if the answer to my question above is yes, then could this affect my current H1B and approved I-140 in any ways. Thanks in advance.
tattoo CITROEN C1 HATCHBACK SPECIAL
rkm
07-17 06:36 PM
Me too..
Thanks again for all the IV support....Great news...
Thank you very much Pappu, Logic Life and IV core members..
Your great effort brought us this great news and relief
Thanks again for all the IV support....Great news...
Thank you very much Pappu, Logic Life and IV core members..
Your great effort brought us this great news and relief
more...
pictures Citroen C1 1.0i Splash Hatch
ranahosur
07-15 07:39 PM
I got an offer from a company, it is not a consulting company. In the offer letter it is mentioned that in case I leave the company or they terminate my employment (there is no time limit for this clause), I will have to pay back H1 cost. (The word H1 cost is mentioned).
I would like to know if this is something I will have to be scared about? I know that it is illegal to ask for H1 cost.
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks
R
I would like to know if this is something I will have to be scared about? I know that it is illegal to ask for H1 cost.
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks
R
dresses Used Citroen C1 1.0 Splash 3
helterskelter
06-23 08:33 AM
Regarding your status in the country, assuming that you acquired the green card before you married, a green card divorce does not change anything with your immigration status, but it may delay your application for full citizenship. I'm not sure if this is helpful since you've consulted about this topic but here's the link for more information about green card divorce Green Card Divorce - LoveToKnow Divorce (http://divorce.lovetoknow.com/Green_Card_Divorce)
more...
makeup CITROEN C1 1.0I SPLASH AIR-CON
locomotive36
11-04 12:17 PM
Dear Readers,
This topic may be totally off immigration and I am sorry for that.
Kindly request you to take a minute and read about this noble person - Narayanan Krishnan - a selfless real life hero!
Once a rising star, chef now feeds hungry - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/04/01/cnnheroes.krishnan.hunger/)
Please vote for him and make win the CNN Hero prize money which can be used towards his trust.
You can vote at - CNN Heroes - Special Reports from CNN.com (http://heroes.cnn.com/vote.aspx)
Please share the word around with your friends and family!
Thanks a lot... Appreciate your kind gesture!
This topic may be totally off immigration and I am sorry for that.
Kindly request you to take a minute and read about this noble person - Narayanan Krishnan - a selfless real life hero!
Once a rising star, chef now feeds hungry - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/04/01/cnnheroes.krishnan.hunger/)
Please vote for him and make win the CNN Hero prize money which can be used towards his trust.
You can vote at - CNN Heroes - Special Reports from CNN.com (http://heroes.cnn.com/vote.aspx)
Please share the word around with your friends and family!
Thanks a lot... Appreciate your kind gesture!
girlfriend CITROEN C1 SPLASH
eb2_immigrant
09-16 02:35 PM
I would say go ahead with your plans, There is no risk at all. I got back from India 2 weeks ago,showed my AP (I was asked to join a seperate line for AP holders). Officer asked for my SSN# thats it.
Do not wait for USCIS to make decisions.
Do not wait for USCIS to make decisions.
hairstyles Citroen C1 Splash
speedo
08-14 07:34 PM
when is your appointment? what city?
arnet
10-26 02:34 PM
Original I-797s should be with us, they can have copy but not original, call VFS where your wife attended interview and enquire why they took it and request them to return it.
if they say they dont have it, I think no need to worry since your wife has already got stamped, and if anybody asks for her I-797, she can show xerox copy of her I-797.
Otherwise if you think you need original I-797, I think you can apply for duplicate copies from USCIS, they will charge some fee for extra copies, check with USCIS or your attroney who filed your H1 & her H4 for the procedure.
Diclaimer: I'm not an immigration attroney, so please consult one for your situation, as laws/procedures are changing often.
They took her original 797 approval notice away....it did confuse her and also me.
She just got her stamped passport back in courier yesterday, but there was no 797 with it.
Should we contact the consulate for it?
if they say they dont have it, I think no need to worry since your wife has already got stamped, and if anybody asks for her I-797, she can show xerox copy of her I-797.
Otherwise if you think you need original I-797, I think you can apply for duplicate copies from USCIS, they will charge some fee for extra copies, check with USCIS or your attroney who filed your H1 & her H4 for the procedure.
Diclaimer: I'm not an immigration attroney, so please consult one for your situation, as laws/procedures are changing often.
They took her original 797 approval notice away....it did confuse her and also me.
She just got her stamped passport back in courier yesterday, but there was no 797 with it.
Should we contact the consulate for it?
GKBest
07-17 04:13 PM
Let us start sending Thank you flowers to IV core memebers such as Logic life, pappu ( i know only these two people) Please add to the list if you know anybody belong to Core team.
They deserve this but a better idea will be to send it to Congresswoman Lofgren. This will create a stir in the Congress.....More News the better.
They deserve this but a better idea will be to send it to Congresswoman Lofgren. This will create a stir in the Congress.....More News the better.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий