delax
08-03 09:47 PM
I think thousand is over exagerated. Most people have filled their application at NSC.
I also have a consiparacy theory now. The dates porbably have moved out because of TSC as they did not have enough cases to process.
U may be right. Do you know the NSC, TSC 485 break up. This is the first time I have heard that NSC has way more apps than TSC. Sorry I may be behind the curve on this..........
I also have a consiparacy theory now. The dates porbably have moved out because of TSC as they did not have enough cases to process.
U may be right. Do you know the NSC, TSC 485 break up. This is the first time I have heard that NSC has way more apps than TSC. Sorry I may be behind the curve on this..........
wallpaper Funny Quotes funny gay
ramus
05-31 04:12 PM
Great..
Just post in drive fund thread when you done..
Thanks,
Contributed $350 so far. Will contribute another $100 today.
Just post in drive fund thread when you done..
Thanks,
Contributed $350 so far. Will contribute another $100 today.
vishwak
11-12 07:46 AM
Consult your Attroney. If HR files for H1B (In some of Companies), please do Hire nice Attorney.
My advise: If you are sending Originals, Take 2 copies and get Notarized and save them safely. If you need them in urgency you can always use Notarized ones.
Please keep updating the Thread with developments which might help others.
My advise: If you are sending Originals, Take 2 copies and get Notarized and save them safely. If you need them in urgency you can always use Notarized ones.
Please keep updating the Thread with developments which might help others.
2011 Handler Funny quotes .
srh1
09-22 01:50 PM
I am really amazed how some guys do not even know how to search house on internet and posting 10 messages for very basic question and dreaming of owning house during one of the turbulent times in the history.
Buying a house is a big decision and there is nothing wrong in asking others. This forum is all about sharing views if you don�t have something nice to say or don�t have any idea about housing stop commenting.
Buying a house is a big decision and there is nothing wrong in asking others. This forum is all about sharing views if you don�t have something nice to say or don�t have any idea about housing stop commenting.
more...
sertasheep
05-24 01:52 PM
Great job, Salil. Can you share your experience working with the press? Was it easy getting the newspaper to carry this article, or did you have to pursue this for a long time? The reason I am asking this is, its hard for one to determine what the media will print. They may take one quote from you but might use it in a different context. I came very close to quoting on Seattle Times but stayed put as the reporter wanted my opinion on the "other" current debate that's going on, and she was not willing to carry an article on Legal immigration alone.
![funny gay quotes. [QUOTEGay-Lord-Perry][img]](http://www.lolcats.com/images/u/07/23/lolcatsdotcom3zvowqzi7sa8pxx3.jpg "[QUOTEGay-Lord-Perry][img]")
BornConfused
07-03 10:12 AM
LOL!
You wont be spending the money on them... in the end it will be for you! Think of it as an investment :)
I guarantee you they won't do a thing with it. in fact they won't even be able to take it home (the workers that is) because they are not allowed to, it's almost like accepting bribes, right? Hey I have an idea, let's all apply lipstick and kiss a piece of paper and send that :D yes, even guys, it's for the greater good:D
You wont be spending the money on them... in the end it will be for you! Think of it as an investment :)
I guarantee you they won't do a thing with it. in fact they won't even be able to take it home (the workers that is) because they are not allowed to, it's almost like accepting bribes, right? Hey I have an idea, let's all apply lipstick and kiss a piece of paper and send that :D yes, even guys, it's for the greater good:D
more...
immigrationvoice1
10-05 12:05 PM
What does your online status say? Mine changed today and says the following:
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
On October 3, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I131 APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT.
No idea what it means though. If you are a July 2nd filer, the above surely should not mean I am about to receive mine anytime now...Confused:confused:
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
On October 3, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I131 APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT.
No idea what it means though. If you are a July 2nd filer, the above surely should not mean I am about to receive mine anytime now...Confused:confused:
2010 funny gay quotes. more than funny quotes. i; more than funny quotes. i
Rayyan
07-22 08:31 PM
Hi,
I don't have surname in my Passport my full name is given in " Given Names".
so while filling up the form (D-156 and D-157) for appointment I put NA in surname, so now my name in "Applicant Name" is myname followed by NA.
IS it ok ? or does it create any problems while I go for visa stamping/interview.
If I cannot put NA then what do I put in Surname column on D-156 and D-157.
Thanks
I don't have surname in my Passport my full name is given in " Given Names".
so while filling up the form (D-156 and D-157) for appointment I put NA in surname, so now my name in "Applicant Name" is myname followed by NA.
IS it ok ? or does it create any problems while I go for visa stamping/interview.
If I cannot put NA then what do I put in Surname column on D-156 and D-157.
Thanks
more...
s.m.srinivas
03-31 01:58 PM
Hi All,
I had H1B of Company A. This H1B expires in this September 2009. In May 2008, I got a good offer from Company B, and they applied for "Transfer of my H1B". Since June 4th 2008, I started working for Company B with the receipt in Hand. Since From June 3rd 2008, till Feb 2009, my case was in pending status. On Feb 13th 2009, USCIS did put RFE for some documents about Company B. During that period, I had emergency to travel to India, so I did go to India for 3 weeks, returned back on March 12th with old employer (Company A's) VISA only, as it is still valid till sept 2009 & more over my case of transfering visa to Company B is still on Pending status. After I returned back, Company B did reply to RFE & I got a email from USCIS saying that they have received it on March 23rd 2009. On March 30th I received one more email from USCIS, saying that my H1B transfer is denied & the denial notice will have the reason as well as options for you. Still I am yet to receive the denial notice.
With these things on board I have following questions
Am I out of status?
Company A visa is valid till september 2009, so can I go back to Company A?
If Yes, then if I go back to Company A, can I apply for Extension from them freshly with premium processing or something
What is the chances that Company B appeal for the denial and get it stamped in these situation?
What are my other options?
Please do suggest me, as I believe as soon as I receive the notice formally to company B, I need to seize working and I will out of status with immediate effect. The time I have is to adjust things is between today & the day I receive the denial notice...
I had H1B of Company A. This H1B expires in this September 2009. In May 2008, I got a good offer from Company B, and they applied for "Transfer of my H1B". Since June 4th 2008, I started working for Company B with the receipt in Hand. Since From June 3rd 2008, till Feb 2009, my case was in pending status. On Feb 13th 2009, USCIS did put RFE for some documents about Company B. During that period, I had emergency to travel to India, so I did go to India for 3 weeks, returned back on March 12th with old employer (Company A's) VISA only, as it is still valid till sept 2009 & more over my case of transfering visa to Company B is still on Pending status. After I returned back, Company B did reply to RFE & I got a email from USCIS saying that they have received it on March 23rd 2009. On March 30th I received one more email from USCIS, saying that my H1B transfer is denied & the denial notice will have the reason as well as options for you. Still I am yet to receive the denial notice.
With these things on board I have following questions
Am I out of status?
Company A visa is valid till september 2009, so can I go back to Company A?
If Yes, then if I go back to Company A, can I apply for Extension from them freshly with premium processing or something
What is the chances that Company B appeal for the denial and get it stamped in these situation?
What are my other options?
Please do suggest me, as I believe as soon as I receive the notice formally to company B, I need to seize working and I will out of status with immediate effect. The time I have is to adjust things is between today & the day I receive the denial notice...
hair Screenshots Queer Quotes:
PALLO
04-21 01:51 PM
[QUOTE=fromnaija;335920]Yes, if you are sure of moving back to the job location specified in the Labor Certification you may not have to restart the process. If you know you will not move back, youand your employer will be commiting immigration fraud if a new LC is not applied.
what kind of evidence you need to provide to show the intention that you will move back to the original location!
what kind of evidence you need to provide to show the intention that you will move back to the original location!
more...
krishna_brc
09-08 11:29 AM
Ban is limited to Govt projects only which hardly is 5% of total outsourcing.
Thanks,
Krishna
Thanks,
Krishna
hot Gay Protests amp; Leciticus
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
more...
house Funny Gay Quotes
jonty_11
03-14 03:12 PM
You can travel back to India on an expired US VISA also.
As long as you are travelling back to india (Country of citizenship)
I did that last yr
someone posted link to German Cosul in LA, which states this clearly...
As long as you are travelling back to india (Country of citizenship)
I did that last yr
someone posted link to German Cosul in LA, which states this clearly...
tattoo [QUOTEGay-Lord-Perry][img]
psaxena
06-23 03:11 PM
and how do you know that.. did Rush tell ya???
Still unlikely I would not take a word from Gibbs. He never knows anything.
Still unlikely I would not take a word from Gibbs. He never knows anything.
more...
pictures funny gay quotes. teacher quotes funny
black_logs
04-17 08:24 AM
I have a friend whose PERM is pending since Dec'2005. But it's not as bad as yours, 10 month is....
dresses Facebook funny quotes
PALLO
04-21 01:42 PM
Thanks guys for your inputs and helping me understand this better.
I understand that LC is for future employement. Someone said that at the time of filing 485 , company should be wiling to make you an offer for the specified location in LC. But does it just mean offer or you have to accept it and move there till it has been post 180 days of 485 submission Time when GC becomes portable (assuming 1-140 is approved).
Thanks once again.
I understand that LC is for future employement. Someone said that at the time of filing 485 , company should be wiling to make you an offer for the specified location in LC. But does it just mean offer or you have to accept it and move there till it has been post 180 days of 485 submission Time when GC becomes portable (assuming 1-140 is approved).
Thanks once again.
more...
makeup Almost as funny as what
jnraajan
03-28 05:25 PM
Has anyone successfully tried this option and recd a response?
girlfriend funny gay quotes. gay marriage
nixstor
07-11 11:09 AM
Why not? USCIS already approved 60K 485 applications in 2 weeks time. How come they cannot do the same with some extra money (i.e. premium processing). They can do anything if want to do.
:mad:
Premium processing does not necessarily mean that it should be done in 15 days. It depends on the complexity of the application. We all know how complex 485 is because of the name check.
The premium processing can cost 1000-1500/more for 485 and should be done in 6 months. They can use the PP money to expedite their name checks. I am not sure what kind of issues USCIS will have implementing this
:mad:
Premium processing does not necessarily mean that it should be done in 15 days. It depends on the complexity of the application. We all know how complex 485 is because of the name check.
The premium processing can cost 1000-1500/more for 485 and should be done in 6 months. They can use the PP money to expedite their name checks. I am not sure what kind of issues USCIS will have implementing this
hairstyles Is Kobe gay, 10.0 out of 10
bbenhill
11-13 08:51 PM
I believe whenever you apply H1 or H4 in US, you will get new I-94 so you don't need to go outside US.
#3 : no, only show H1B approval from ur spouse.
#4 : I don't know about 60 days rule but this is like chicken and egg situation. to get paid (using H1), you will need to have SSN. if you don't get paid then you are violating ur H1 condition. so I believe the reasonable answer is you have to get SSN and a project so you can get paid and stay using H1B status (if not revert to H4 asap).
#5 : I believe you are not out of status but you are violating H1 condition.
But again, Please check with ur attorney since I am not an attorney.
Sorry if my answers will scare you a bit.
Regards,
I came to USA in March-2009 on H4 visa, I have H4 visa stamp on my passport valid till 2011 which is my husband�s valid H1 date. Then i applied for H1B through one of consulting companies. I got H1B approval in June-2009. I am searching for the project from June-2009 but, don't have project till date. So now i wanted to change my status again from H1B to H4. I believe my H1B is automatically activated on 1st Oct 2009. I still don�t have any paychecks since I did not get the project and haven�t yet applied for SSN.
So my questions are,
1.Can I apply for visa status change from H1B to H4 in USA or
a. I need to go outside USA and reapply for H4 visa in my home country or
b.just go outside USA and enter back with my current H4 on my passport which is valid until 2011?
2. Is there any alternative that I can apply for status change from H1B to H4 immediately in USA to continue my H4 visa again and can get H4 visa stamp in future when I will go outside USA?
3. Do I need to show paystubs from Oct-2009 while applying for H4 COS in USA while filling the form?
4. Is there a 60 day rule during which I need to apply for my SSN? What would happen if I delay applying for my SSN?
5. Under what scenarios and When would I be considered out of status?
Thank You in advance.
Arpu
#3 : no, only show H1B approval from ur spouse.
#4 : I don't know about 60 days rule but this is like chicken and egg situation. to get paid (using H1), you will need to have SSN. if you don't get paid then you are violating ur H1 condition. so I believe the reasonable answer is you have to get SSN and a project so you can get paid and stay using H1B status (if not revert to H4 asap).
#5 : I believe you are not out of status but you are violating H1 condition.
But again, Please check with ur attorney since I am not an attorney.
Sorry if my answers will scare you a bit.
Regards,
I came to USA in March-2009 on H4 visa, I have H4 visa stamp on my passport valid till 2011 which is my husband�s valid H1 date. Then i applied for H1B through one of consulting companies. I got H1B approval in June-2009. I am searching for the project from June-2009 but, don't have project till date. So now i wanted to change my status again from H1B to H4. I believe my H1B is automatically activated on 1st Oct 2009. I still don�t have any paychecks since I did not get the project and haven�t yet applied for SSN.
So my questions are,
1.Can I apply for visa status change from H1B to H4 in USA or
a. I need to go outside USA and reapply for H4 visa in my home country or
b.just go outside USA and enter back with my current H4 on my passport which is valid until 2011?
2. Is there any alternative that I can apply for status change from H1B to H4 immediately in USA to continue my H4 visa again and can get H4 visa stamp in future when I will go outside USA?
3. Do I need to show paystubs from Oct-2009 while applying for H4 COS in USA while filling the form?
4. Is there a 60 day rule during which I need to apply for my SSN? What would happen if I delay applying for my SSN?
5. Under what scenarios and When would I be considered out of status?
Thank You in advance.
Arpu
fromnaija
03-18 04:20 PM
would that invalidate the SSN?
No. Once allocated, SSN cannot become invalid; it is yours for life. So, not renewing EAD will not invalidate SSN.
No. Once allocated, SSN cannot become invalid; it is yours for life. So, not renewing EAD will not invalidate SSN.
JunRN
08-21 11:51 AM
I've never done AR-11 myself because atty. is doing it for me...but when I looked at the on-line AR-11, Change of Address...A# is optional, meaning you do not need to input something on it. I think it was pretty easy to do it.
Did you know that that you can earn dollars by locking special pages of your blog / site?
ОтветитьУдалитьSimply join AdWorkMedia and run their content locking plug-in.