GCBy3000
04-15 06:38 PM
Admins,
Now a days I am seeing lots of questions asked by new members. If you have some mechanisms to show whether they have registered with valid data or fake data would help the other members who spend time in answering those questions.
I would request all the new members to contribute to our cause. Join monthly contribution of $20 and help yourselves. Thanks.
Now a days I am seeing lots of questions asked by new members. If you have some mechanisms to show whether they have registered with valid data or fake data would help the other members who spend time in answering those questions.
I would request all the new members to contribute to our cause. Join monthly contribution of $20 and help yourselves. Thanks.
wallpaper nightwish wallpaper_31. formal
vnsriv
07-19 01:53 PM
I was in the same shoes once...did some reseach and gather some info hope it will be helpful to resolve your case.
You can file spouse 485 later but not always
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following is my scenario and the advice I received from a Top (at least high fee: $250 for a 20 minute phone session) lawyer.
EB3 PD Nov 2002 I-140 Approved Jan/04 1-485 filed June 04. I got married in Dec 04 and we were back in USA in Jan 05. Unfortunately we were 2 week too late to beat the retrogression.
My lawyer told me to file wife's 485 as she is dependent and PD is not an issue. Absolutely wrong. USCIS returned her application after 5 weeks.
We waited almost 2.5 years to finally file her application in June 07. I got approved on 23 June but we are OK since her application was filed before that
Key:
1. Get married before your GC approval (before/after 140/485 does not matter as long as you are not approved.
2. Bring spouse on H4 (No derivative status with EAD so maintain H1)
3. Keep all the documents ready (Birth certificate/Marriage certificate etc.)
4. Follow visa bulletin as soon as dates are current get medical test completed
5. File her 485 (Make sure USCIS receives it after the dates become current)
(If USCIS receives your application before dates being current they may still accept the package and reject it after couple of weeks. )
6. What if you are married before GC approval but get approved before her 485 is filed
1. Spouse out of USA
No other way but to file 'Follow to join' in home country. Spouse will not be able to entry on any other visa before his/her GC approval.
2. Spouse in USA on his/her own status ( i.e. wither H1/L1/F1 etc.)
File 485 as a derivative no special processing
3. Spouse in USA as your dependent ( i.e. H4 etc.)
he/she will be 'out of status' as soon as your GC is approved. Inspected by an immigration agent at entry point. Not on parole. You can file 485 under [Section 245(K)] within 180 days. No special processing. NO fines.
Please talk to a reputed lawyer before doing any thing.
My story
EB3 RIR PD Jul 2002,
Filed I-485 in Jun 2005 was not married at that time
Did a speedy marriage in Sept 2005 in US, wife was on H1 and submitted the papers for wife, USCIS rejected because of retrogession
Waited till Jun 2007 to get dates current, filed wife's case on 7th jun
Got my I-485 approved on 28th Jun. Still waiting for wife's receipt notices.
You can file spouse 485 later but not always
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following is my scenario and the advice I received from a Top (at least high fee: $250 for a 20 minute phone session) lawyer.
EB3 PD Nov 2002 I-140 Approved Jan/04 1-485 filed June 04. I got married in Dec 04 and we were back in USA in Jan 05. Unfortunately we were 2 week too late to beat the retrogression.
My lawyer told me to file wife's 485 as she is dependent and PD is not an issue. Absolutely wrong. USCIS returned her application after 5 weeks.
We waited almost 2.5 years to finally file her application in June 07. I got approved on 23 June but we are OK since her application was filed before that
Key:
1. Get married before your GC approval (before/after 140/485 does not matter as long as you are not approved.
2. Bring spouse on H4 (No derivative status with EAD so maintain H1)
3. Keep all the documents ready (Birth certificate/Marriage certificate etc.)
4. Follow visa bulletin as soon as dates are current get medical test completed
5. File her 485 (Make sure USCIS receives it after the dates become current)
(If USCIS receives your application before dates being current they may still accept the package and reject it after couple of weeks. )
6. What if you are married before GC approval but get approved before her 485 is filed
1. Spouse out of USA
No other way but to file 'Follow to join' in home country. Spouse will not be able to entry on any other visa before his/her GC approval.
2. Spouse in USA on his/her own status ( i.e. wither H1/L1/F1 etc.)
File 485 as a derivative no special processing
3. Spouse in USA as your dependent ( i.e. H4 etc.)
he/she will be 'out of status' as soon as your GC is approved. Inspected by an immigration agent at entry point. Not on parole. You can file 485 under [Section 245(K)] within 180 days. No special processing. NO fines.
Please talk to a reputed lawyer before doing any thing.
My story
EB3 RIR PD Jul 2002,
Filed I-485 in Jun 2005 was not married at that time
Did a speedy marriage in Sept 2005 in US, wife was on H1 and submitted the papers for wife, USCIS rejected because of retrogession
Waited till Jun 2007 to get dates current, filed wife's case on 7th jun
Got my I-485 approved on 28th Jun. Still waiting for wife's receipt notices.
optimist578
01-31 03:10 PM
You can always ask for a copy of the approval after the I-140 is approved. Depends on how cooperative your HR and lawyer are.
Is there a way to track the status of one's I-140 petition through USCIS's website?
Is there a way to track the status of one's I-140 petition through USCIS's website?
2011 nightwish wallpaper_31. more
sanjose
07-24 07:04 PM
I am a july 2nd 2007 filer with notice date Aug 23rd 2007. In response to my SR, I received the following reply:
"...... There is not currently a visa available to you based upon your country of birth, your employment-based category and your priority date. Your I-485 application cannot be adjudicated until there is a visa available to you. Your case is therefore awaiting visa availability for your category and further review by an Adjudications Officer. ......."
Many people have said that the July 2nd filers cases have been pre-adjudicated.
However the SR response clearly says that my case will not be adjudicated untill visa # will be avalable.
Does anybody know what is meant by pre-adjudication ?
What is difference between adjudication and pre-adjudication?
Thanks in advance for your replies. Any reply will be appreciated specially from the attorneys.
"pre-"
"...... There is not currently a visa available to you based upon your country of birth, your employment-based category and your priority date. Your I-485 application cannot be adjudicated until there is a visa available to you. Your case is therefore awaiting visa availability for your category and further review by an Adjudications Officer. ......."
Many people have said that the July 2nd filers cases have been pre-adjudicated.
However the SR response clearly says that my case will not be adjudicated untill visa # will be avalable.
Does anybody know what is meant by pre-adjudication ?
What is difference between adjudication and pre-adjudication?
Thanks in advance for your replies. Any reply will be appreciated specially from the attorneys.
"pre-"
more...
shivaz90
07-16 10:40 PM
It's pretty strange..I really don't understand...why the entire credit is either being given to IV...or for that matter to AILA/AILF....Everyone has contributed....
People about to file I-485 have spread the word to everyone abt the injustice done to them...whereas each organization has done its own thing...
I won't blame or taunt AILA/AILF....because the idea of class lawsuit itself would have scared a lot of people in USCIS.....that also coming from legal organization...And filing a lawsuit takes time...there r lot of things to be considered..
Well .. lets think for a second before trumpeting our victory here. And Victory, I mean is not achieved by one group over the other. Various groups and parties have put in thier efforts to find a resolution and to cast blame on one another is playing some childish games.
Lets leave out our passion for a second and think "logically" for a second - which one of this scares the s*** out of the USCIS people here - flower campaign or a Class action lawsuit by bunch of immigration lawyers? I am not doubting anyone's efforts here - but to say that we have achieved victory here is too early, too short sighted and blaming other groups for not doing much is silly. As much as the flower campaign help spread the word among the media of the plight of legal immigrants - the proposed lawsuit has made USCIS tremble in thier pants.
Sheikh - couldn't agree more here with you.
People about to file I-485 have spread the word to everyone abt the injustice done to them...whereas each organization has done its own thing...
I won't blame or taunt AILA/AILF....because the idea of class lawsuit itself would have scared a lot of people in USCIS.....that also coming from legal organization...And filing a lawsuit takes time...there r lot of things to be considered..
Well .. lets think for a second before trumpeting our victory here. And Victory, I mean is not achieved by one group over the other. Various groups and parties have put in thier efforts to find a resolution and to cast blame on one another is playing some childish games.
Lets leave out our passion for a second and think "logically" for a second - which one of this scares the s*** out of the USCIS people here - flower campaign or a Class action lawsuit by bunch of immigration lawyers? I am not doubting anyone's efforts here - but to say that we have achieved victory here is too early, too short sighted and blaming other groups for not doing much is silly. As much as the flower campaign help spread the word among the media of the plight of legal immigrants - the proposed lawsuit has made USCIS tremble in thier pants.
Sheikh - couldn't agree more here with you.
JunRN
11-09 12:00 AM
That same link you gave tells us that 655k is pending/back-log for AOS....
more...
brb2
04-02 11:43 PM
Some of the figures looked a bit too unbelievable so I checked out. A particular one that was hard to believe - in the US Science and Engineering undergraduates is 32% (page 1 of IV report). On checking with the referenced document (Executive summary) at:
http://darwin.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11463.pdf
Page 12 quotes a figure of 15% for US undergraduates in Science/Engineering.
IV core members can you please clarify? If it is incorrect then we need to correct the document before some one points out the flaw.
http://darwin.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11463.pdf
Page 12 quotes a figure of 15% for US undergraduates in Science/Engineering.
IV core members can you please clarify? If it is incorrect then we need to correct the document before some one points out the flaw.
2010 nightwish wallpaper_31. more
Hello_Hello
11-30 09:48 PM
I have no idea what Mr. Chopra is talking about, as far as I know US administration has become more foreigner unfriendly in last 10 years and Obama administration is even worse. i don't know of 1 friendly law passed in last decade.
The Startup Case For Immigration Reform - Maureen Farrell - Scaling Up - Forbes (http://blogs.forbes.com/maureenfarrell/2010/11/23/startups%E2%80%99-case-for-immigration/?boxes=Homepagechannels)
The United States� Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra says President Obama has tried to lower administrative barriers for bringing foreign nationals into the US for professional development. �In his first year the President wanted to make sure scientists around the world who wanted to visit the US to participate in conferences and seminars could do that,� says Chopra. �We have streamlined that process and efforts so they can participate in ways that are a lot more friendly to their participation.�
�
The Startup Case For Immigration Reform - Maureen Farrell - Scaling Up - Forbes (http://blogs.forbes.com/maureenfarrell/2010/11/23/startups%E2%80%99-case-for-immigration/?boxes=Homepagechannels)
The United States� Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra says President Obama has tried to lower administrative barriers for bringing foreign nationals into the US for professional development. �In his first year the President wanted to make sure scientists around the world who wanted to visit the US to participate in conferences and seminars could do that,� says Chopra. �We have streamlined that process and efforts so they can participate in ways that are a lot more friendly to their participation.�
�
more...
rolrblade
07-27 04:00 PM
Not entirely true..
Some employees of my client company who filed their AOS in june did so without signing a single piece of paper and already got their RNs and FP's done as well.
There are a few things to see if what your lawyer did was correct:
1) Did he ask you to write him/her an email/letter authorizing them to sign on your behalf
2) Your company has your facsimile signatures or signature stamps.
this is the correct information. Applicant signature is not necessary if you have an attorney representation form. I have verified this with two different attorneys and also my HR guy, who suprisingly is very knowledgeable in GC process.
In my own case I have sent an email to the attorney authorizing them to sign on my behalf. The firm has confirmed that it is sufficient. I just off the phone with them too. 3 attorney - SAME ANSWER.
Some employees of my client company who filed their AOS in june did so without signing a single piece of paper and already got their RNs and FP's done as well.
There are a few things to see if what your lawyer did was correct:
1) Did he ask you to write him/her an email/letter authorizing them to sign on your behalf
2) Your company has your facsimile signatures or signature stamps.
this is the correct information. Applicant signature is not necessary if you have an attorney representation form. I have verified this with two different attorneys and also my HR guy, who suprisingly is very knowledgeable in GC process.
In my own case I have sent an email to the attorney authorizing them to sign on my behalf. The firm has confirmed that it is sufficient. I just off the phone with them too. 3 attorney - SAME ANSWER.
hair nightwish wallpaper_31.
voldemar
03-26 10:10 PM
Hi,
Does anyone know if people on H4 are allowed to work unpaid? For example, can a person on an H4 visa file for an H1B visa with a start date of October 1st, 2007 but work on a volunteer basis (i.e., unpaid) at the same job while waiting for the H1B to come?
Thanks,
AndyPeople on H4 not supposed to take job that normally would be paid. They can do trully volunteer job like community service, charity work any other work that don't have to be paid. In your case it's real work, because you will be paid for it after Oct.1. So employer will hire someone else to do this job till that date. If you work unpaid you replace this guy.
P.S. I'm not a lawyer ;)
Does anyone know if people on H4 are allowed to work unpaid? For example, can a person on an H4 visa file for an H1B visa with a start date of October 1st, 2007 but work on a volunteer basis (i.e., unpaid) at the same job while waiting for the H1B to come?
Thanks,
AndyPeople on H4 not supposed to take job that normally would be paid. They can do trully volunteer job like community service, charity work any other work that don't have to be paid. In your case it's real work, because you will be paid for it after Oct.1. So employer will hire someone else to do this job till that date. If you work unpaid you replace this guy.
P.S. I'm not a lawyer ;)
more...
cjain
11-13 03:10 PM
From the Aytes memo:
Question 1
How should service centers or district offices process unapproved I-140 petitions that were concurrently filed with I-485 applications that have been pending 180 days in relation to the I-140 portability provisions under �106(c) of AC21?
Answer:
If it is discovered that a beneficiary has ported off of an unapproved I-140 and I-485 that has been pending for 180 days or more, the following procedures should be applied:
A. Review the pending I-140 petition to determine if the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the case is approvable or would have been approvable had it been adjudicated within 180 days. If the petition is approvable but for an ability to pay issue or any other issue relating to a time after the filing of the petition, approve the petition on it’s merits. Then adjudicate the adjustment of status application to determine if the new position is the same or similar occupational classification for I-140 portability purposes.
B. If a request for additional evidence (RFE) is necessary to resolve a material issue, other than post-filing issues such as ability to pay, an RFE can be issued to try to resolve the issue. When a response is received, and if the petition is approvable, follow the procedures in part A above.
Hope this clears stuff up. RFE's are generally issued for ability to pay issues. If all's clear on that front, there should simply be no issue
Question 1
How should service centers or district offices process unapproved I-140 petitions that were concurrently filed with I-485 applications that have been pending 180 days in relation to the I-140 portability provisions under �106(c) of AC21?
Answer:
If it is discovered that a beneficiary has ported off of an unapproved I-140 and I-485 that has been pending for 180 days or more, the following procedures should be applied:
A. Review the pending I-140 petition to determine if the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the case is approvable or would have been approvable had it been adjudicated within 180 days. If the petition is approvable but for an ability to pay issue or any other issue relating to a time after the filing of the petition, approve the petition on it’s merits. Then adjudicate the adjustment of status application to determine if the new position is the same or similar occupational classification for I-140 portability purposes.
B. If a request for additional evidence (RFE) is necessary to resolve a material issue, other than post-filing issues such as ability to pay, an RFE can be issued to try to resolve the issue. When a response is received, and if the petition is approvable, follow the procedures in part A above.
Hope this clears stuff up. RFE's are generally issued for ability to pay issues. If all's clear on that front, there should simply be no issue
hot nightwish wallpaper_31. girls
mwin
08-14 02:49 PM
325 + 70 + 180 + 170 = 745
How did you come up with $745? I-485 application fees were $325 + $70 fee for biometrics. That makes it $395 per application or $790 for two applications. Maybe your lawyer gave you incorrect advice about the fees??
How did you come up with $745? I-485 application fees were $325 + $70 fee for biometrics. That makes it $395 per application or $790 for two applications. Maybe your lawyer gave you incorrect advice about the fees??
more...
house nightwish wallpaper_31. tattoo
quizzer
02-25 11:39 PM
If somebody wants to enter IT field from a non-IT background, any list of suggestions of the certifications and courses to be taken? There are so many of them that it is hard to choose.
SAP and Oracle are any day hot!!!!!!!!!!!
SAP and Oracle are any day hot!!!!!!!!!!!
tattoo nightwish wallpaper_31.
snathan
03-28 04:22 PM
As per my tax preparer's advice, I sent both the tax return and W-7 form to IRS ITIN Operation office in Austin, Texas. Is this the correct address?
yes...
yes...
more...
pictures nightwish wallpaper_31.
serg
04-06 11:18 PM
that's the official title of the bill, nothing wrong with it.
they still have a cloture motion vote tomorrow morning, so we'll see.
Yes, sure, I'm not going to give up until it will be clear. By the way, they will have almost a night to make some agreements (sure, they don't want to be "last mile" in this bill, both of them). Hope they will bring out something new tomorrow morning :)
they still have a cloture motion vote tomorrow morning, so we'll see.
Yes, sure, I'm not going to give up until it will be clear. By the way, they will have almost a night to make some agreements (sure, they don't want to be "last mile" in this bill, both of them). Hope they will bring out something new tomorrow morning :)
dresses dresses more. nightwish
bluekayal
02-25 05:21 AM
I understand your mother filed for I-140, but did she also file your I-485 and advance parole? If so, as soon as you get your AP, leave the country and return..as a Parolee. Then apply for FAFSA..
more...
makeup nightwish wallpaper_31.
amitjoey
01-11 11:46 AM
Just so everybody understands:
This bill has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on Jan 5th 2011.
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee.
There have been a lot of bills in the previous years that have not made it to the floor.
IV can make it an action item if the bill comes out of the committee and is going to go on the floor for debate.
Members need to constantly educate lawmakers, approach the judiciary committe and tell them about the issues we face. Unless we educate and build pressure, these kind of bills will never come to the floor.
Venting or wishing for some bill to come on floor will not help. Talking to lawmakers in person, educating lawmaker's staff and building pressure to keep our issues alive is the only way forward.
This bill has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on Jan 5th 2011.
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee.
There have been a lot of bills in the previous years that have not made it to the floor.
IV can make it an action item if the bill comes out of the committee and is going to go on the floor for debate.
Members need to constantly educate lawmakers, approach the judiciary committe and tell them about the issues we face. Unless we educate and build pressure, these kind of bills will never come to the floor.
Venting or wishing for some bill to come on floor will not help. Talking to lawmakers in person, educating lawmaker's staff and building pressure to keep our issues alive is the only way forward.
girlfriend are a common nightwish
jgh_res
05-17 10:01 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
hairstyles nightwish wallpaper_31.
hpandey
06-02 03:16 PM
you are right, but isnt that found only when you are travelling outside of the USA? If I am in USA till i get a gc and then add my wife, how will anyone know if she is out of status ?
As people have said above as soon as you move from H1 to EAD your H1 would be no longer be valid and hence the corresponding H-4 status will no longer be valid and since you cannot file for AOS for your wife now , your wife will be out of status.
This information will come up in future when you apply for I-485 for your wife.It does not matter if your wife is still in the US or not. She will be out of status if you lose your H1 status ( just like anyone who loses his H1 status the dependent also loses his status ).
As people have said above as soon as you move from H1 to EAD your H1 would be no longer be valid and hence the corresponding H-4 status will no longer be valid and since you cannot file for AOS for your wife now , your wife will be out of status.
This information will come up in future when you apply for I-485 for your wife.It does not matter if your wife is still in the US or not. She will be out of status if you lose your H1 status ( just like anyone who loses his H1 status the dependent also loses his status ).
rongha_2000
10-02 11:57 AM
You may be generally right about this, but in my case the attorney fees are borne by my company and it is my company who advised me to apply for EAD and still said that they will maintain my H1 till my AOS is approved, and thats where all these questions started popping in my mind.
The only real reason why your lawyer wanted you to apply for EAD is to collect their fees. If you are maintaining H1, there is no need to EAD. If you lose your job, you will most likely have time to get an EAD, or you may even end up doing an H1 transfer.
The only real reason why your lawyer wanted you to apply for EAD is to collect their fees. If you are maintaining H1, there is no need to EAD. If you lose your job, you will most likely have time to get an EAD, or you may even end up doing an H1 transfer.
pappu
09-05 06:08 PM
There is already a big thread (IV spotlight sticky) on this topic. You should get all info from there. Could you try searching else someone else on the forum can help post the link. That should answer all your questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment