shirish
10-08 11:47 AM
Received an email on friday, Card production rdered for the EADs for both of us.
Received RN for EAD and AP for all three of us. (NO EAD for son :) as did not apply) yesterday
PD - sept 05 EB2 India-
I140 - Approved Apr 2006
I-485,AP,EAD - reached NSC on July 27th 07
485- RN - Not received
EAD - RN - received - ND - sept 27th 07 - EAC XXXXXXX
AP - RN - received - ND - sept 27th 07 - EAC XXXXXXX
Hope every will get it soon.
Received RN for EAD and AP for all three of us. (NO EAD for son :) as did not apply) yesterday
PD - sept 05 EB2 India-
I140 - Approved Apr 2006
I-485,AP,EAD - reached NSC on July 27th 07
485- RN - Not received
EAD - RN - received - ND - sept 27th 07 - EAC XXXXXXX
AP - RN - received - ND - sept 27th 07 - EAC XXXXXXX
Hope every will get it soon.
wallpaper Selena Gomez#39;s Twitter Was
joshraj
10-03 02:44 PM
Lets Keep Our fingers Crossed :) and PRAY :)
lecter
January 6th, 2005, 08:52 PM
of the technique....
on the back layer, use gaussian blur, then erase, getting a sharper than background coloured bit.
add some saturation....
whadddya think?
Robhttp://images8.fotki.com/v146/photos/1/173093/1080432/2flower-vi.jpg
on the back layer, use gaussian blur, then erase, getting a sharper than background coloured bit.
add some saturation....
whadddya think?
Robhttp://images8.fotki.com/v146/photos/1/173093/1080432/2flower-vi.jpg
2011 Follow @cadlymack on Twitter
paskal
10-26 03:11 PM
Can you talk in english please?
:D
:D
more...
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
gcbeku
08-10 01:13 PM
Gurus,
A very close friend of mine has filed EB3-I 485 with Sep 2003 PD. The job, at present, requires EB2 level qualifications, however, the employer is not too keen on sponsoring a change to EB2.
So, what options do we have ?
a) when is EB3-I Sep 2003 PD likely to be come current? 12m? 18m from now?
b) can AC21 approach be used to port this to a EB2 category ?
c) can his spouse separately file for EB2-I PERM, I140 and file for 485?
(I am assuming that EB2-I will be current approximately around this time next year).
Thanks.
A very close friend of mine has filed EB3-I 485 with Sep 2003 PD. The job, at present, requires EB2 level qualifications, however, the employer is not too keen on sponsoring a change to EB2.
So, what options do we have ?
a) when is EB3-I Sep 2003 PD likely to be come current? 12m? 18m from now?
b) can AC21 approach be used to port this to a EB2 category ?
c) can his spouse separately file for EB2-I PERM, I140 and file for 485?
(I am assuming that EB2-I will be current approximately around this time next year).
Thanks.
more...
absaarkhan
01-18 10:33 AM
All,
I have a very GOOD update on
"IS H1B TRANSFER POSSIBLE AFTER ENTERING US ON ADVANCE PAROLE"
I posted this question On Rajiv Khanna's website on
The question is on the Jan 17th conference Questions list.
He answered my question.
According to him even after you enter on AP, u can still work for the same employer on H1B, and he also confirmed that we can do a H1B transfer even after using AP, NO NEED TO GO OUT OF USA FOR H1B STAMPING.
This is a very good info for me i was trying to get this info for a while now.
Hope this will be useful to atleast some of us.
I have a very GOOD update on
"IS H1B TRANSFER POSSIBLE AFTER ENTERING US ON ADVANCE PAROLE"
I posted this question On Rajiv Khanna's website on
The question is on the Jan 17th conference Questions list.
He answered my question.
According to him even after you enter on AP, u can still work for the same employer on H1B, and he also confirmed that we can do a H1B transfer even after using AP, NO NEED TO GO OUT OF USA FOR H1B STAMPING.
This is a very good info for me i was trying to get this info for a while now.
Hope this will be useful to atleast some of us.
2010 Selena Gomez Didn#39;t Get
monicasgupta
11-16 11:17 AM
I talked to Murthy about the same code but they replied that it is ok if the codes are different but the job duties matter which determine the code.
"In practice, the INS has agreed that the AC21 law does not limit it to an identical DOT or O*Net code and has approved many cases throughout the local INS offices and the INS Service Centers in which the new position does not match the earlier job with respect to DOT Code or O*Net classification."
Read this at http://murthy.com/news/UDac21qa.html
monica
"In practice, the INS has agreed that the AC21 law does not limit it to an identical DOT or O*Net code and has approved many cases throughout the local INS offices and the INS Service Centers in which the new position does not match the earlier job with respect to DOT Code or O*Net classification."
Read this at http://murthy.com/news/UDac21qa.html
monica
more...
dummgelauft
02-01 12:56 PM
Unless you are sitting on a pile of cash, this is really a no brainer....
Like others have suggested :
(1) Give it to me, i will invest it for you..;-)
(2) Depends upon your familial situation and resources you have, both here and in your home country.
(3) If you plan to go back to India ( i am guessing yo are Indian..)
This really is a personal choice that you have to make, with your spouse. By posting such question on open public forums, you have just opened the floodgates to getting made fun of and ridiculed...believe me, it is very tempting...
Like others have suggested :
(1) Give it to me, i will invest it for you..;-)
(2) Depends upon your familial situation and resources you have, both here and in your home country.
(3) If you plan to go back to India ( i am guessing yo are Indian..)
This really is a personal choice that you have to make, with your spouse. By posting such question on open public forums, you have just opened the floodgates to getting made fun of and ridiculed...believe me, it is very tempting...
hair U.S. actress Selena Gomez
lostinbeta
10-03 01:13 PM
:::whistling:::
SPAM*INFINITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:::runs away again::::::
:::evil chuckle in background:evil: :::
SPAM*INFINITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:::runs away again::::::
:::evil chuckle in background:evil: :::
more...
sbnvs@yahoo.com
04-08 12:51 PM
Looks like demand data for May is out. Please check the following
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/EmploymentDemandUsedForCutOffDates.pdf
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/EmploymentDemandUsedForCutOffDates.pdf
hot Followers On Twitter
nlssubbu
07-19 12:24 AM
How will you get the papers signed without them being here? You also need recent passport size photos of them as well for AP document.
You can differ filing EAD and AP at a later date.
Thanks
PS: I am not an attorney and please consult with them.
You can differ filing EAD and AP at a later date.
Thanks
PS: I am not an attorney and please consult with them.
more...
house justin bieber and selena gomez
monkeyman
11-06 08:29 AM
They are your in-laws!!! Are you sure you want them here? Think about it. :-) Jokes apart, its a pleasure to travel in Jet. My parents did travel - they can't speak English nor really read well - the crew helps them (in Hindi or Gujarati). You would have to be really knocked out to miss connecting flights in Brussells. So worry not - they'll be just fine.
tattoo justin bieber y selena gomez
ahiyer
09-08 10:47 AM
I am a little skeptical about how this would work.
Wont they charge you for International dialing when calling from here?
lastly, is it legal?
Wont they charge you for International dialing when calling from here?
lastly, is it legal?
more...
pictures selena gomez and justin bieber
gc_chahiye
08-15 12:11 AM
I was told by my attorney's office that the application will be rejected if re-filed. I have read though threads which claim that multiple filing is fine, but dont know what to trust!
I480 filed - July,02, waiting for RD/ND
I140, RD-11/03/06, LUD-11/11/07(NSC), Waiting for approval.
why did you want to refile? Did you get a copy of the complete filing from your attorneys office to see what they filed? Was something missed in your first filing?
I480 filed - July,02, waiting for RD/ND
I140, RD-11/03/06, LUD-11/11/07(NSC), Waiting for approval.
why did you want to refile? Did you get a copy of the complete filing from your attorneys office to see what they filed? Was something missed in your first filing?
dresses selena gomez death threats
wandmaker
02-16 12:58 PM
Hi Everyone,
I will be laid off from an american company by the end of Feb 2009. I spoke to my previous desi employee as my H1b with his company is still valid and he din't revoked it until now
But he agrees to let me join his company but at the same time he worried about few things
Q1) I was with him for 6 months of 2008 and moved to an American Company so the total pay in the W2 for year 2008 is less than LCA amount.
Would that be a problem as i din't work with him for an entire year in which case it is bound to be less than LCA amount..
Mind you i'm looking at the Yearly wage if you look at month wise it is much higher than mentioned in LCA.
Would that be of any problem to both me and employeer.
Q2) He also said that when somebody re hires any one , the employeer is liable to pay back wages for the period of time he was out.
It sounds illogical atleast to me because he didn't terminate me from the job it was me who quit the job and transferred my H1b on a good note , but there is no official document saying i quit the job or he terminated me ....
I would appreciate if some could throw some light on this ....
My future is relied on these issues
Thanks
David
For Q1, Please call 1-866-487-2365
For Q2, Please call 1-800-375-5283
I will be laid off from an american company by the end of Feb 2009. I spoke to my previous desi employee as my H1b with his company is still valid and he din't revoked it until now
But he agrees to let me join his company but at the same time he worried about few things
Q1) I was with him for 6 months of 2008 and moved to an American Company so the total pay in the W2 for year 2008 is less than LCA amount.
Would that be a problem as i din't work with him for an entire year in which case it is bound to be less than LCA amount..
Mind you i'm looking at the Yearly wage if you look at month wise it is much higher than mentioned in LCA.
Would that be of any problem to both me and employeer.
Q2) He also said that when somebody re hires any one , the employeer is liable to pay back wages for the period of time he was out.
It sounds illogical atleast to me because he didn't terminate me from the job it was me who quit the job and transferred my H1b on a good note , but there is no official document saying i quit the job or he terminated me ....
I would appreciate if some could throw some light on this ....
My future is relied on these issues
Thanks
David
For Q1, Please call 1-866-487-2365
For Q2, Please call 1-800-375-5283
more...
makeup selena gomez twitter. selena
rvendra
05-25 01:55 PM
My case transferred to USCIS local office and below is the case status:
EB 2 Dec 15 2003 - No updates so far
This case has been sent to another office for processing and on September 18, 2009 we sent you a notice explaining this action. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, please use our Change of Address online tool to update your case with your new address or call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283.
EB 2 Dec 15 2003 - No updates so far
This case has been sent to another office for processing and on September 18, 2009 we sent you a notice explaining this action. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, please use our Change of Address online tool to update your case with your new address or call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283.
girlfriend selena gomez death threats on
GCard_Dream
06-18 06:15 PM
Just so you know, EB3-ROW has the exact same issue as the EB3-India; they are both unavailable. Is that not a problem? Don't take my word for it, just look at the recent visa bulletins.
Having said that, if you don't know what all the problems are with different preference categories for ROW or non-ROW then may be you need to spend some time educating yourself before making statements suggesting that ROW does't need any relief or only Indians are suffering through the EB mess.
My intent is not to divide IV. I was just highlighting EB non-ROW.
Forgive my ignorance. Is there any specific Issues that hamper EB-ROW ?
Please enlighten me.
Having said that, if you don't know what all the problems are with different preference categories for ROW or non-ROW then may be you need to spend some time educating yourself before making statements suggesting that ROW does't need any relief or only Indians are suffering through the EB mess.
My intent is not to divide IV. I was just highlighting EB non-ROW.
Forgive my ignorance. Is there any specific Issues that hamper EB-ROW ?
Please enlighten me.
hairstyles Selena Gomez Receiving Threats
paritp
04-13 06:59 PM
I received Green card approval email from USCIS even though my PD is not current
Last month I had changed my address online and USCIS bymistake updated my I-485 status to approved.
I received the Green Card approval email from USCIS. I checked my status on USCIS.gov it says my case has been approved and card production has been ordered.
The only document I have received from USCIS is for the correct address update notification. The letter states that, they have updated my Address successfully.
I have still not recived any GC as it has been over 3 weeks now. I would like to get back my status which was pending.
What should I do in this case?
Last month I had changed my address online and USCIS bymistake updated my I-485 status to approved.
I received the Green Card approval email from USCIS. I checked my status on USCIS.gov it says my case has been approved and card production has been ordered.
The only document I have received from USCIS is for the correct address update notification. The letter states that, they have updated my Address successfully.
I have still not recived any GC as it has been over 3 weeks now. I would like to get back my status which was pending.
What should I do in this case?
chanduv23
09-14 03:39 PM
yes - never knew it was Jay's voice - orr peobably Jay is doing mimicry
amsgc
07-03 08:01 AM
There is no such thing as an H-1B transfer - it is unfortunate that this word is used and it confuses people all the time.
Your company B has filed a new petition on our behalf to employ you with a request for:
- The petition to be not counted in the yearly cap
- Your status be extended till the end date on the new petition
Generally speaking:
Since you have already started working for the new employer, you MUST enter using the H-1B approval notice of the new employer (even if you use the visa stamped through the previous employer).
Regarding Mexico - never been there so I don't know how it works with the I-94.
Mine is not h1 extension but what is called transfer - Company A to company B. Can I not enter using Company A's documents as they did not cancel my h1b and wont cancel it either. Also I will get pay stub from them till jul 15 for work done till jun 20th.
Your company B has filed a new petition on our behalf to employ you with a request for:
- The petition to be not counted in the yearly cap
- Your status be extended till the end date on the new petition
Generally speaking:
Since you have already started working for the new employer, you MUST enter using the H-1B approval notice of the new employer (even if you use the visa stamped through the previous employer).
Regarding Mexico - never been there so I don't know how it works with the I-94.
Mine is not h1 extension but what is called transfer - Company A to company B. Can I not enter using Company A's documents as they did not cancel my h1b and wont cancel it either. Also I will get pay stub from them till jul 15 for work done till jun 20th.
