tempgc
09-24 01:25 PM
Source OH law firm (immigration-law.com)
No one should be surprised by the Los Angeles Times report that the USCIS is "considering" but not yet decided fee increases. As we reported earlier, the State Department is already seeking OMB approval for its consular and embassy services fee increase. Report says that the USCIS recorded a short fall of $118 million this fiscal year. One of the key reasons for the fund problem is cited reduced number of new case filings. Since the USCIS relies on the fee-income for its finance, it presents a problem. Another reason which is not discussed in the report may include its need for money to support ongoing reengineering project named business transformation program. This program is primarily funded by the premium processing service fee fund. Obviously, the PPS fund is suffering as well, particularly considering a drastic decrease of new employment-based cases. Another reason the report cited is need to funds to deal with potential increase in workload which are likely generated by the Comprehensive Immigration Reform, should the CIR be successfully enacted next year. However, this reason for fee increase may be considered too premature, considering the fact that the CIR may not be accomplished even in 2010. The most probable year for a successful CIR legislation is currently considered year 2011. Let's see what happens.
No one should be surprised by the Los Angeles Times report that the USCIS is "considering" but not yet decided fee increases. As we reported earlier, the State Department is already seeking OMB approval for its consular and embassy services fee increase. Report says that the USCIS recorded a short fall of $118 million this fiscal year. One of the key reasons for the fund problem is cited reduced number of new case filings. Since the USCIS relies on the fee-income for its finance, it presents a problem. Another reason which is not discussed in the report may include its need for money to support ongoing reengineering project named business transformation program. This program is primarily funded by the premium processing service fee fund. Obviously, the PPS fund is suffering as well, particularly considering a drastic decrease of new employment-based cases. Another reason the report cited is need to funds to deal with potential increase in workload which are likely generated by the Comprehensive Immigration Reform, should the CIR be successfully enacted next year. However, this reason for fee increase may be considered too premature, considering the fact that the CIR may not be accomplished even in 2010. The most probable year for a successful CIR legislation is currently considered year 2011. Let's see what happens.
wallpaper and grey Koi Tattoo - Side
ddanait
02-07 04:24 PM
True and I don't blame them, my priority date is 10th August 2007 and I haven't seen much progress since then. Last year during advocacy day in washington the turn out was pretty low, let's hope we will have better turn out this year and will make our voice heard.
We pay all the taxes including social security being on work visa, why should we be made liable to pay these taxes when the beneifts will be reaped only by citizens. An individual should be made to pay SS taxes only after he becomes a permanent resident. We are made to pay each and every tax without getting anything in return except an ambiguos future for us and family.
We pay all the taxes including social security being on work visa, why should we be made liable to pay these taxes when the beneifts will be reaped only by citizens. An individual should be made to pay SS taxes only after he becomes a permanent resident. We are made to pay each and every tax without getting anything in return except an ambiguos future for us and family.
mmk123
07-17 11:13 AM
Hello All,
I want to start an interesting discussion - not sure whether a thread already exists or a similar discussion has already taken place.
We all know about the current state of the economy and current unfortunate unemployment rate. We all also know that majority jobs lost are in construction, manufacturing etc. We also know that some people (who have no other choice) are targetting legal EB community as if they are responsible for all this mess.
I want people to discuss the other things like DV Lottery, Chain Family Migration or any other popular programs from labor/unemployment point of view. Please no intent to discuss it from any other angle at all.
These forms of migration bring a lot of uneducated (or less educated), unskilled (or low skilled) population/labor into the country which contribute higher for the unemployment rate (for both numerator and denomenator - rate = # unemployed/# total).
example: suppose in a hypothetical community of 10000000, 300000 are unemployed. They have 3% of unemployement rate.
Supposed 30K unskilled (or low skilled) labor is added (which neither creates jobs nor are employed). Now if they are added, the rate becomes 330000/10030000 or ~ 3.3%
This can be bad example but it was just to put a point forward.
Are there any statistics (again?) available about the effect of DV, chain family migration or any such program in the last 10-15 years towards the unemployment rate today? A lot of unskilled (or low skilled) labor was added to the economy which was OK during upward economy but cannot sustain at all in down economy like this.
Thanks,
M.
I want to start an interesting discussion - not sure whether a thread already exists or a similar discussion has already taken place.
We all know about the current state of the economy and current unfortunate unemployment rate. We all also know that majority jobs lost are in construction, manufacturing etc. We also know that some people (who have no other choice) are targetting legal EB community as if they are responsible for all this mess.
I want people to discuss the other things like DV Lottery, Chain Family Migration or any other popular programs from labor/unemployment point of view. Please no intent to discuss it from any other angle at all.
These forms of migration bring a lot of uneducated (or less educated), unskilled (or low skilled) population/labor into the country which contribute higher for the unemployment rate (for both numerator and denomenator - rate = # unemployed/# total).
example: suppose in a hypothetical community of 10000000, 300000 are unemployed. They have 3% of unemployement rate.
Supposed 30K unskilled (or low skilled) labor is added (which neither creates jobs nor are employed). Now if they are added, the rate becomes 330000/10030000 or ~ 3.3%
This can be bad example but it was just to put a point forward.
Are there any statistics (again?) available about the effect of DV, chain family migration or any such program in the last 10-15 years towards the unemployment rate today? A lot of unskilled (or low skilled) labor was added to the economy which was OK during upward economy but cannot sustain at all in down economy like this.
Thanks,
M.
2011 half sleeve tattoo ideas for
dish
04-07 06:05 PM
Backlog Cases:
Total Received: 363,000+
Total Completed: 108,000+
Total Certified: 50,000
Balance: 255,000
Full data entry will will be completed by 06/30/2006 as scheduled.
PERM:
Total Received: 80,272
Certified: 36,587
Denied: 23,305
Audit: 24,960
Withdrawn: 1,950
Now look at the maasive backlog of unprocessed cases in BEC. The Baclog Centers have received more than 363000 LCs and out of it 255000 are still untouched. given this pace they will take at least 5 yrs to finish processing all the applications. and DOL has added a graphic on their website claiming 18 months to go. They are just making FUN of US for yielding to their beaurocracy.
Total Received: 363,000+
Total Completed: 108,000+
Total Certified: 50,000
Balance: 255,000
Full data entry will will be completed by 06/30/2006 as scheduled.
PERM:
Total Received: 80,272
Certified: 36,587
Denied: 23,305
Audit: 24,960
Withdrawn: 1,950
Now look at the maasive backlog of unprocessed cases in BEC. The Baclog Centers have received more than 363000 LCs and out of it 255000 are still untouched. given this pace they will take at least 5 yrs to finish processing all the applications. and DOL has added a graphic on their website claiming 18 months to go. They are just making FUN of US for yielding to their beaurocracy.
more...
webm
01-23 10:19 AM
Sounds great..esp TSC dates.
greencard_fever
11-01 08:31 PM
Hi willgetgc2005,
I am in same position you are in..i have applied for an extension for my mother in law for another 6 months ...it's been 5 months still waiting for approval...but i took a chance and made my mothe in-law stay back based on pending approval...its your call how bad you need your monther in-law's help during your daughter's treatment..if possible take the letter form doctors office that your daughter is sick and you need her help in this hard times and attach this letter with you extension application.. this will help for extension..this is what i did..
I am in same position you are in..i have applied for an extension for my mother in law for another 6 months ...it's been 5 months still waiting for approval...but i took a chance and made my mothe in-law stay back based on pending approval...its your call how bad you need your monther in-law's help during your daughter's treatment..if possible take the letter form doctors office that your daughter is sick and you need her help in this hard times and attach this letter with you extension application.. this will help for extension..this is what i did..
more...
knowDOL
05-26 07:32 AM
I think we shou;d draft a Thank you webfax so all memberrs can send it.
2010 getting sleeve tattoos.
njboy
10-02 03:11 PM
if u feel company is in bad shape, then file perm through another employer..stay with this company in the meantime till ur h1 expires and file an appeal for the 140..if appeal fails..u'll have an approved labor by then with the other employer and u can jump to his company..
more...
laksmi
12-03 08:02 PM
I am also in same boat, I was gathering information on the same and found different solutions.
1)To be on safer side you can transfer H1B and also invoke AC21 to the new employer, if the new employer is willing to support,
2)If H1B is not revoked by the old employer then Yes , you can work on EAD or H1B for the same old employer
3) since I140 is approved for more then 6 months, you are safe, he may not have options to revoke I140.
4)If you have validity of H1B stamping on your passport then no need of using AP as well to go in and out of country, even after using EAD.
please advice on the same, good questions synergy.
1)To be on safer side you can transfer H1B and also invoke AC21 to the new employer, if the new employer is willing to support,
2)If H1B is not revoked by the old employer then Yes , you can work on EAD or H1B for the same old employer
3) since I140 is approved for more then 6 months, you are safe, he may not have options to revoke I140.
4)If you have validity of H1B stamping on your passport then no need of using AP as well to go in and out of country, even after using EAD.
please advice on the same, good questions synergy.
hair quarter sleeve tattoo ideas
BharatPremi
12-10 12:46 PM
any suggestions if 140 is not approved?
Filed in August 2007......doesn't look like there is much movement based on tracker!!!!
EAD in hand
Yes. If I-140 is not approved, Do not use AC-21.
Filed in August 2007......doesn't look like there is much movement based on tracker!!!!
EAD in hand
Yes. If I-140 is not approved, Do not use AC-21.
more...
h4visa
07-27 01:46 PM
After EAD is approved, H4 can work anywhere in any job.
Thanks much Jasmin.
Thanks much Jasmin.
hot quarter sleeve tattoo.
vvr
12-18 08:57 PM
Pls. send your feedback to letters@mercurynews.com.
I called them today and cancelled my subscription today after 3 yrs of continued subscription. It's very ironic of mercury news to publish a one sided article against immigrants given their subscriber base.
I called them today and cancelled my subscription today after 3 yrs of continued subscription. It's very ironic of mercury news to publish a one sided article against immigrants given their subscriber base.
more...
house Sleeve Tattoo Designs 6 Sleeve
RayP
12-10 04:44 AM
Friends... does anybody have some idea.
tattoo Hell Quarter Sleeve Tattoo;
shouldIwait
05-22 01:03 AM
Admins....please block this guy
more...
pictures quarter sleeve tattoos for
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
dresses tattoo quarter sleeve tattoo
ajju
07-23 11:14 AM
Are we supposed to get every year?? did ur friend apply EAD renewal online ?
I remember reading somewhere on USCIS website and this forum that FP taken in late 2007 (probably for all July 2007 filers) will last for the duration of AOS application...
This must be for bad FP or for missing FP for self or any family member...
I remember reading somewhere on USCIS website and this forum that FP taken in late 2007 (probably for all July 2007 filers) will last for the duration of AOS application...
This must be for bad FP or for missing FP for self or any family member...
more...
makeup dragon tattoo sleeve.
at0474
01-09 03:45 PM
"I suppose this year's quota for EB3 India is not yet used (as small it may seem). My guess is, when EB3 processing begins, it should get your collegues out in 6 to 9 months from now."
EB3 quota is like a spoon of rice from a bag of basmati :))
--LOL! True, but I thought it is good enough for 5 guys with PDs in 2001.
EB3 quota is like a spoon of rice from a bag of basmati :))
--LOL! True, but I thought it is good enough for 5 guys with PDs in 2001.
girlfriend The three-quarter sleeve on
a_yaja
01-08 11:01 AM
Thank you for the quick response.
You said there are 3 copies of AP. But my lawyer sent me only 2 copies. Is that a problem???
I don't think so. I applied for AP on my own - and I got only 2 copies, not three.
You said there are 3 copies of AP. But my lawyer sent me only 2 copies. Is that a problem???
I don't think so. I applied for AP on my own - and I got only 2 copies, not three.
hairstyles half sleeve tattoo ideas
ramus
08-15 12:07 PM
Great.. please contribute to DC rally in anyway you can.
I thought this will give some hope to you.
Mine reached USCIS on July-3rd around 6:00am. All 6 (2x485, 2xAP, 2xEAD) checks were cached today.
Hope yours on the way too...
I thought this will give some hope to you.
Mine reached USCIS on July-3rd around 6:00am. All 6 (2x485, 2xAP, 2xEAD) checks were cached today.
Hope yours on the way too...
sodh
02-12 05:07 PM
Folks,
employer's attorney claims that there is no such thing as H4 premium processing.
Can anyone point me to the correct memo where Premium filing was made available for I-539 applications?
I searched all Mathew-Oh updates dated one year ago and can't locate it.
I need to get that h4 under premium ASAP so that I can transfer to H1 in April.
Can anyone please help?
There is nothing like premium processing for H4, if your H1 is applied in premium processing, H4 is also processed in 15 calendar days.
employer's attorney claims that there is no such thing as H4 premium processing.
Can anyone point me to the correct memo where Premium filing was made available for I-539 applications?
I searched all Mathew-Oh updates dated one year ago and can't locate it.
I need to get that h4 under premium ASAP so that I can transfer to H1 in April.
Can anyone please help?
There is nothing like premium processing for H4, if your H1 is applied in premium processing, H4 is also processed in 15 calendar days.
desi3933
03-27 01:29 PM
I was on bench for 4 months in 2001. I have 2 times H1 transfer after that and visited India couple of times. I have regular pay stubs from 2002 onwards.
Can this create an issue while IO is working on my 485 application?
Is that time period listed on G-325a (Applicant's employment last five years)?
Can this create an issue while IO is working on my 485 application?
Is that time period listed on G-325a (Applicant's employment last five years)?
No comments:
Post a Comment