asdfgh
02-27 08:32 AM
Currently in wetsern europe and going tomorrow to pick up my passport....am getting 2 stamps...1 for current extension that ends end of next month and then a second one for the new extension valid until '10....had to pay twice the fees since its 2 stamps.
They discussed the issue at the consulate and decided that the best way to proceed was with 2 stamps to avoid any issues at port of entry.
Reason - The stamp needs to match the dates on 797...so either get 2 stamps or get 1 stamp for the latest extension which will only be effective for travel beginning 10 days prior to date on 797.
Guess based on a previous post it varies from consulate to consulate.
Whatever you get, doesnt matter, as long as you get it and it allows you to come back when you want to.
They discussed the issue at the consulate and decided that the best way to proceed was with 2 stamps to avoid any issues at port of entry.
Reason - The stamp needs to match the dates on 797...so either get 2 stamps or get 1 stamp for the latest extension which will only be effective for travel beginning 10 days prior to date on 797.
Guess based on a previous post it varies from consulate to consulate.
Whatever you get, doesnt matter, as long as you get it and it allows you to come back when you want to.
karanp25
07-13 08:01 PM
ski_dude12, u r just inviting trouble for urself by not keeping uscis in the loop. I assume u lost ur night's sleep looking for the valid source of my earlier comment? keep looking.
I will continue shooting "off my hips" .... i think i may have missed it this time...
Are you sure about that? Can you give your source that says
"You have to inform them of every small move even after citizenship is approved".
If you can support your post by citing a valid source then its fine, otherwise stop shooting off your hips please.
I will continue shooting "off my hips" .... i think i may have missed it this time...
Are you sure about that? Can you give your source that says
"You have to inform them of every small move even after citizenship is approved".
If you can support your post by citing a valid source then its fine, otherwise stop shooting off your hips please.
krishnam70
05-01 04:48 PM
Received the RFE today. It was asking for my birth certificate copy & translation. My lawyer says this is very common. For me this is stupid, they already got my birth certificate copy and the translation.
Just make sure you covered all the bases and reply to them. It might not hurt to include another copy of your birth certificate and translation just for the heck of it along with your explanation who knows may be the earlier one got misplaced or messed up
- cheers
kris
Just make sure you covered all the bases and reply to them. It might not hurt to include another copy of your birth certificate and translation just for the heck of it along with your explanation who knows may be the earlier one got misplaced or messed up
- cheers
kris
Dhundhun
06-14 03:07 PM
Hi Guys,
For those who applied for EAD using eFile, please post information on supporting documents you sent.
Any other info on post-eFile of EAD is welcome.
Thanks.
This thread may help you. http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18737
For those who applied for EAD using eFile, please post information on supporting documents you sent.
Any other info on post-eFile of EAD is welcome.
Thanks.
This thread may help you. http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18737
more...
eagerr2i
09-08 01:38 PM
http://prweb.com/releases/2006/9/prweb435159.htm
gcseeker2002
11-05 01:01 PM
Is there any basis needed for approving AP? Is it EAD ? If so my application is in deeps***. onceagain, is there anybody here with this kind of experience. Also since I already took infopass once, is there any use taking it again for my ead ?
^^^ bump ^^^
^^^ bump ^^^
more...
feedfront
10-16 03:03 PM
I used AP first time to enter. I had to go thru 2nd inspection where I was instructed to sit and after 15-20 mins, I got my AP back with stamped. I had applied for H1B visa also in India and it got stuck into 'administrative processing'. After extending my stay by 1 week, my employer/attorney suggested to use AP to enter. I did not had any issue @SFO POE even though my visa application is still under 'administrative processing'.
Jaime
09-06 04:49 PM
I have worked in Europe for 4+ years and i can say that life in US and Europe is the same (cost of living is higher in Europe but social security is better). I was seriously considering a move to UK (despite racism) to gain job/life freedom for me and my family. I have HSMP from UK and got a job offer that paid me better (including 35% raise in cost of living) than current US job with flexibility to change employment, also my wife could take up job any day she wants (unlike H4).
You are a poster child of the U.S. Reverse Brain Drain. Shame on Congress if the United States loses you and your family!
You are a poster child of the U.S. Reverse Brain Drain. Shame on Congress if the United States loses you and your family!
more...
dreamgc_real
01-07 09:04 AM
AUSTIN -- Illegal immigration isn't on the short list of issues Texas sheriffs gave this year's Legislature, but it could end up becoming a new priority for them.
Texas has 254 sheriffs, and while opinions vary about whether illegal immigration should be their problem, some Republicans are pushing measures that won't give them a choice. More than a dozen bills targeting illegal immigration await the Legislature when it convenes Tuesday, when the GOP will enter with a historic conservative supermajority in the House.
One bill would require police to ask drivers without identification if they're in the country legally. Another would cut off state funds to departments that don't enforce immigrations laws.
"It's split among my colleagues on whether we should be out here just stopping individuals without probable cause, and questioning them on their immigration status," said Travis County Sheriff Greg Hamilton, who believes the proposals invite profiling.
On Thursday, El Paso County Sheriff Richard Wiles planned to join immigrant advocacy groups at the Capitol, where they're expected to denounce bills targeting illegal immigrants as bad for the Texas economy and constitutionally unworkable.
In Arizona, a new law passed last year requires police officers, when enforcing other laws, to question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally. The Obama administration filed a lawsuit to block portions of the law, and the outcome remains pending in federal court.
Many Texas sheriffs along the border, long vocal about being understaffed and underfunded on the edge of Mexico's violent drug war, oppose the measures as another drain on their deputies. They and sheriffs in Houston and San Antonio also worry about profiling.
Others don't see it as an imposition, and maybe a necessity. In Fort Bend County, which includes Houston's conservative suburbs, Sheriff Milton Wright said he would support laws requiring his deputies to enforce immigration laws if the federal government won't.
"If they're not going to do it, then we need to," he said.
Arizona's new law left Texas facing unavoidable questions. Texas has an estimated 1.6 million illegal immigrants, second only to California, and Republicans control every statewide office. Gov. Rick Perry has said he doesn't support Texas adopting a law identical to Arizona's, while at the same time praising that state's initiative for taking the illegal immigration problem into its own hands.
Texas lawmakers have filed immigration bills before, only to see them wither. Deep ties Texas has to Mexico are as much cultural as economic, and leading business groups in the state oppose tough crackdown measures.
But between then new GOP supermajority in the House and Arizona's success, outnumbered Texas Democrats aren't willing to make wagers on the chances of the bills prevailing this time.
"You've got a bunch of new Republicans who campaigned with some very inflammatory rhetoric, and they now find themselves in charge," said Democratic Rep. Rafael Anchia. "I'm sure they're going to want to deliver some red meat for some of their constituencies."
So important is the issue to state Rep. Debbie Riddle that she camped outside the clerk's window to ensure her get-tough immigration bills would be first in line. State Sen. Dan Patrick filed a bill that would require police to ask anyone without an ID whether they're in the country illegally, but the Houston-area talk radio host says his measure affords officer discretion. For instance, he said an officer could choose not to arrest a harmless minivan-driving mom who is revealed to be an illegal immigrant.
Patrick, who visited Arizona to see its new law in action, said the possibility of legal challenges is no barrier.
"Too many people want to duck and cover and bury their heads in the sand," Patrick said. "This is an issue we have to stand tall on. Republicans have to stand together."
In most Texas counties, a suspect's legal status becomes an issue only if they're booked into jail. Their fingerprints are run through a Homeland Security database, and people who are flagged are referred to federal immigration agents.
Harris County was the first place in the nation to try the federal program, called Secure Communities. But that's about the extent that Sheriff Adrian Garcia wants to be involved in immigration enforcement.
Garcia said he doesn't want people afraid of calling police for help or coming forward with crime tips.
"Legislation that would encourage people to have second thoughts about calling 911 or Crime Stoppers, I have a problem with that," he said.
Several sheriffs said they would wait for the Sheriffs' Association of Texas to evaluate the proposals. Bryan County Sheriff Christopher Kirk, who chairs the association's legislative committee, said last month he had yet to look over the bills individually.
The association gave its list of six priorities to lawmakers for this session. The list includes jail overcrowding, mentally ill suspects in local lockups, methamphetamines, thieves swiping salvage metals, and what Kirk described as "protecting the office of sheriff."
Topping the list: border security. But Kirk said that's not about illegal immigration.
"It's the trafficking. The borders. That smuggling could be drugs, or weapons," Kirk said.
During the previous two legislative sessions, Patrick said "too much chaos" in the House doomed immigration proposals. This time, Patrick said, Republicans have the numbers - and a willingness to work with law enforcement.
"You have to have their buy-in," Patrick said. "I want them to be enthusiastic about it."
Sen. Luz Robles' bill could become national model | Deseret News (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700098043/Sen-Luz-Robles-bill-could-become-national-model.html)
Texas has 254 sheriffs, and while opinions vary about whether illegal immigration should be their problem, some Republicans are pushing measures that won't give them a choice. More than a dozen bills targeting illegal immigration await the Legislature when it convenes Tuesday, when the GOP will enter with a historic conservative supermajority in the House.
One bill would require police to ask drivers without identification if they're in the country legally. Another would cut off state funds to departments that don't enforce immigrations laws.
"It's split among my colleagues on whether we should be out here just stopping individuals without probable cause, and questioning them on their immigration status," said Travis County Sheriff Greg Hamilton, who believes the proposals invite profiling.
On Thursday, El Paso County Sheriff Richard Wiles planned to join immigrant advocacy groups at the Capitol, where they're expected to denounce bills targeting illegal immigrants as bad for the Texas economy and constitutionally unworkable.
In Arizona, a new law passed last year requires police officers, when enforcing other laws, to question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally. The Obama administration filed a lawsuit to block portions of the law, and the outcome remains pending in federal court.
Many Texas sheriffs along the border, long vocal about being understaffed and underfunded on the edge of Mexico's violent drug war, oppose the measures as another drain on their deputies. They and sheriffs in Houston and San Antonio also worry about profiling.
Others don't see it as an imposition, and maybe a necessity. In Fort Bend County, which includes Houston's conservative suburbs, Sheriff Milton Wright said he would support laws requiring his deputies to enforce immigration laws if the federal government won't.
"If they're not going to do it, then we need to," he said.
Arizona's new law left Texas facing unavoidable questions. Texas has an estimated 1.6 million illegal immigrants, second only to California, and Republicans control every statewide office. Gov. Rick Perry has said he doesn't support Texas adopting a law identical to Arizona's, while at the same time praising that state's initiative for taking the illegal immigration problem into its own hands.
Texas lawmakers have filed immigration bills before, only to see them wither. Deep ties Texas has to Mexico are as much cultural as economic, and leading business groups in the state oppose tough crackdown measures.
But between then new GOP supermajority in the House and Arizona's success, outnumbered Texas Democrats aren't willing to make wagers on the chances of the bills prevailing this time.
"You've got a bunch of new Republicans who campaigned with some very inflammatory rhetoric, and they now find themselves in charge," said Democratic Rep. Rafael Anchia. "I'm sure they're going to want to deliver some red meat for some of their constituencies."
So important is the issue to state Rep. Debbie Riddle that she camped outside the clerk's window to ensure her get-tough immigration bills would be first in line. State Sen. Dan Patrick filed a bill that would require police to ask anyone without an ID whether they're in the country illegally, but the Houston-area talk radio host says his measure affords officer discretion. For instance, he said an officer could choose not to arrest a harmless minivan-driving mom who is revealed to be an illegal immigrant.
Patrick, who visited Arizona to see its new law in action, said the possibility of legal challenges is no barrier.
"Too many people want to duck and cover and bury their heads in the sand," Patrick said. "This is an issue we have to stand tall on. Republicans have to stand together."
In most Texas counties, a suspect's legal status becomes an issue only if they're booked into jail. Their fingerprints are run through a Homeland Security database, and people who are flagged are referred to federal immigration agents.
Harris County was the first place in the nation to try the federal program, called Secure Communities. But that's about the extent that Sheriff Adrian Garcia wants to be involved in immigration enforcement.
Garcia said he doesn't want people afraid of calling police for help or coming forward with crime tips.
"Legislation that would encourage people to have second thoughts about calling 911 or Crime Stoppers, I have a problem with that," he said.
Several sheriffs said they would wait for the Sheriffs' Association of Texas to evaluate the proposals. Bryan County Sheriff Christopher Kirk, who chairs the association's legislative committee, said last month he had yet to look over the bills individually.
The association gave its list of six priorities to lawmakers for this session. The list includes jail overcrowding, mentally ill suspects in local lockups, methamphetamines, thieves swiping salvage metals, and what Kirk described as "protecting the office of sheriff."
Topping the list: border security. But Kirk said that's not about illegal immigration.
"It's the trafficking. The borders. That smuggling could be drugs, or weapons," Kirk said.
During the previous two legislative sessions, Patrick said "too much chaos" in the House doomed immigration proposals. This time, Patrick said, Republicans have the numbers - and a willingness to work with law enforcement.
"You have to have their buy-in," Patrick said. "I want them to be enthusiastic about it."
Sen. Luz Robles' bill could become national model | Deseret News (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700098043/Sen-Luz-Robles-bill-could-become-national-model.html)
va_dude
03-07 01:21 PM
1. yes, if u use ac21, you can get ur h1 transferred too or opt to use your ead.
2. when u start new employment u fill out an I-9 form and will provide your ead at that time. It basically means you are using your ead for employment, which will automatically invalidate your h1b visa. so i don't think you can do the transfer at a later time.
3. no idea
4. no idea
2. when u start new employment u fill out an I-9 form and will provide your ead at that time. It basically means you are using your ead for employment, which will automatically invalidate your h1b visa. so i don't think you can do the transfer at a later time.
3. no idea
4. no idea
more...
Almond
07-18 09:00 AM
My friend's waiting to hear word on her application which is with the Philadelphia Backlog center. I read on here that they will finish processing these applications within the next 2 months and that will be it and at this point she and I are worried because another friend of ours got a letter asking the employer if he was still interested in sponsoring him (this was about 8 months ago or so) whereas she never did. The lawyer (same dope I go to) tells her to just wait, but the deadline is so close, it's scary. So, should she call, what can she do? By the way, she's been waiting since 2001. Thanks!
.gif "funny quotes and sayings")
zico123
04-19 10:58 PM
I see ..... Thanks for the reply roseball
I guess now I will have to apply for amendment with new I-20 from Kaplan showing that I will be in status till Oct 1st. Thanks a lot, I was wondering how is it determined who gets I-94 and who does not ... now I know.
Do you know how long I have to apply for amendment?
I guess now I will have to apply for amendment with new I-20 from Kaplan showing that I will be in status till Oct 1st. Thanks a lot, I was wondering how is it determined who gets I-94 and who does not ... now I know.
Do you know how long I have to apply for amendment?
more...
immig4me
11-03 10:08 AM
I don't care much for either party, but I do find "talking points" abhorring as it never considers the practical matters...........
What is it about the immigration debate that makes Republicans in Congress act like children?
In the latest stunt, all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee - Charles Grassley, Jon Kyl, John Cornyn, Orrin Hatch, Lindsey Graham, Tom Coburn and Jeff Sessions - have signed a letter asking Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to "detail exactly how much funding" would be needed to "ensure that enforcement of the law occurs consistently for every illegal alien encountered and apprehended."
The answer: A lot.
John Morton, director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told me that Congress appropriates $2.6 billion each year for the detention and removal of illegal immigrants.
According to Morton, ICE is able to apprehend, process and remove a maximum of about 400,000 immigrants per year. (From October 2009 to September 2010, the Obama administration deported 392,862 people.) This is a record, and yet still only a fraction of the estimated 10.3 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.
So to remove 10 million illegal immigrants, it would cost about $65 billion.
There you go, senators. Will that be cash or charge?
Of course, there are also the ancillary costs. First, if the federal government were to cast the net wide enough to apprehend large numbers of suspected illegal immigrants, perhaps by substituting skin color for probable cause (see: Arizona), it's likely to ensnare a good number of U.S.-born Latinos who would probably file a flurry of lawsuits for racial profiling, and thus run up the tab. Second, in the time that it takes to detect, detain and deport 10 million illegal immigrants, many of those who had already been removed would come back - and then have to be re-deported at an additional cost. And third, by spending that much more money on enforcement, federal immigration officials would surely inspire smugglers on the other side of the border to raise their prices. This would only enrich and empower the bad guys to bring in still more illegal immigrants.
Then, there is another problem. As incredible as it sounds, deporting millions of illegal immigrants would be disruptive to Americans' way of life. As Morton pointed out, there would likely be massive and debilitating labor shortages, especially in those industries that currently depend more heavily than they should on illegal immigrant labor.
"No one is talking about letting people go on their way with no punishment whatsoever," Morton said. "But we need a rational discussion of the proper sanction in light of the circumstances."
Republicans are really in no position to talk about seriousness. When serious leadership is called for, they offer only theatrics and chest-thumping. They have to realize that, as a practical matter, ICE can't deport every illegal immigrant it comes in contact with. But they don't care. They only want attention.
The GOP has a lot invested in spinning the yarn that the border can be secured and millions of illegal immigrants expelled through a strategy of enforcement only. Once you adopt this line of thinking, the way to explain the fact that there are still millions of illegal immigrants in the United States is to somehow argue that the Obama administration has been slow to deport them.
This was a harmless delusion when Republicans were in the minority in Congress. But now that they are gaining seats, it could become a real nuisance as politicians proceed to lecture law enforcement officials about the best way to enforce the law.
As the country's top immigration enforcement official, Morton is critical of an enforcement-only approach.
"You have to be much more precise than simply saying 'deport them all'," he said. "That kind of attitude doesn't make sense in the context of how you deal with 10.3 million people."
There you have it. Right on cue, seven Republican senators have stopped making sense.
Read more: Republicans can't talk about immigration enforcement (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/02/EDL11G5MD9.DTL#ixzz14ETlnYgq)
Republicans can't talk about immigration enforcement (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/02/EDL11G5MD9.DTL)
What is it about the immigration debate that makes Republicans in Congress act like children?
In the latest stunt, all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee - Charles Grassley, Jon Kyl, John Cornyn, Orrin Hatch, Lindsey Graham, Tom Coburn and Jeff Sessions - have signed a letter asking Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to "detail exactly how much funding" would be needed to "ensure that enforcement of the law occurs consistently for every illegal alien encountered and apprehended."
The answer: A lot.
John Morton, director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told me that Congress appropriates $2.6 billion each year for the detention and removal of illegal immigrants.
According to Morton, ICE is able to apprehend, process and remove a maximum of about 400,000 immigrants per year. (From October 2009 to September 2010, the Obama administration deported 392,862 people.) This is a record, and yet still only a fraction of the estimated 10.3 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.
So to remove 10 million illegal immigrants, it would cost about $65 billion.
There you go, senators. Will that be cash or charge?
Of course, there are also the ancillary costs. First, if the federal government were to cast the net wide enough to apprehend large numbers of suspected illegal immigrants, perhaps by substituting skin color for probable cause (see: Arizona), it's likely to ensnare a good number of U.S.-born Latinos who would probably file a flurry of lawsuits for racial profiling, and thus run up the tab. Second, in the time that it takes to detect, detain and deport 10 million illegal immigrants, many of those who had already been removed would come back - and then have to be re-deported at an additional cost. And third, by spending that much more money on enforcement, federal immigration officials would surely inspire smugglers on the other side of the border to raise their prices. This would only enrich and empower the bad guys to bring in still more illegal immigrants.
Then, there is another problem. As incredible as it sounds, deporting millions of illegal immigrants would be disruptive to Americans' way of life. As Morton pointed out, there would likely be massive and debilitating labor shortages, especially in those industries that currently depend more heavily than they should on illegal immigrant labor.
"No one is talking about letting people go on their way with no punishment whatsoever," Morton said. "But we need a rational discussion of the proper sanction in light of the circumstances."
Republicans are really in no position to talk about seriousness. When serious leadership is called for, they offer only theatrics and chest-thumping. They have to realize that, as a practical matter, ICE can't deport every illegal immigrant it comes in contact with. But they don't care. They only want attention.
The GOP has a lot invested in spinning the yarn that the border can be secured and millions of illegal immigrants expelled through a strategy of enforcement only. Once you adopt this line of thinking, the way to explain the fact that there are still millions of illegal immigrants in the United States is to somehow argue that the Obama administration has been slow to deport them.
This was a harmless delusion when Republicans were in the minority in Congress. But now that they are gaining seats, it could become a real nuisance as politicians proceed to lecture law enforcement officials about the best way to enforce the law.
As the country's top immigration enforcement official, Morton is critical of an enforcement-only approach.
"You have to be much more precise than simply saying 'deport them all'," he said. "That kind of attitude doesn't make sense in the context of how you deal with 10.3 million people."
There you have it. Right on cue, seven Republican senators have stopped making sense.
Read more: Republicans can't talk about immigration enforcement (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/02/EDL11G5MD9.DTL#ixzz14ETlnYgq)
Republicans can't talk about immigration enforcement (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/02/EDL11G5MD9.DTL)
chakjobs
12-23 12:33 PM
Hi All,
Could any please provide some insight about the companies "Unemployment Wage report" for the state of California?
This is the only query as stated in the 221(g) form got from Chennai embassy for your reference.
"State Unemployment Wage Reports, showing all wages paid to each employee in the state, for the past two quarters as filed to State of California (This should not be payroll reports, but the actual forms filed to the State authorities listing each employee and wages paid during the quarter.)"
Could you please provide me the exact form name and number to submit through the dropbox. Also some explanation if possible on how the form will look like in order to track it down?
Any help in this regard is greatly appreciated.
Happy Holidays!
All the very best to all of you.
Thanks & Regards,
Chak
Could any please provide some insight about the companies "Unemployment Wage report" for the state of California?
This is the only query as stated in the 221(g) form got from Chennai embassy for your reference.
"State Unemployment Wage Reports, showing all wages paid to each employee in the state, for the past two quarters as filed to State of California (This should not be payroll reports, but the actual forms filed to the State authorities listing each employee and wages paid during the quarter.)"
Could you please provide me the exact form name and number to submit through the dropbox. Also some explanation if possible on how the form will look like in order to track it down?
Any help in this regard is greatly appreciated.
Happy Holidays!
All the very best to all of you.
Thanks & Regards,
Chak
more...
s_r_e_e
08-07 05:35 PM
We did my wife's h4 stamping when landed in canada for PR. this was 3 years ago..
langagadu
05-06 12:19 PM
Quetions to Gurus. I did read in so many forums since long time but did not get a clear understanding around salary.
1) What is the meaning of "There should not be very huge variance in income levels."
Does it mean while moving from one job to another (1 time)?
2) What if the GC is filed 8 years ago and the person is still waiting but got an average of
10% hike every year. Is that a problem?
1. A letter from your employer with same or similar job description and title ( check the equivalency list)
2. Make sure your income is along the lines which is defined in the LCA. There should not be very huge variance in income levels.
- cheers
kris
1) What is the meaning of "There should not be very huge variance in income levels."
Does it mean while moving from one job to another (1 time)?
2) What if the GC is filed 8 years ago and the person is still waiting but got an average of
10% hike every year. Is that a problem?
1. A letter from your employer with same or similar job description and title ( check the equivalency list)
2. Make sure your income is along the lines which is defined in the LCA. There should not be very huge variance in income levels.
- cheers
kris
more...
GotGoose?
04-08 05:10 PM
I took your advice frost and changed each accordingly.
Hopefully, they look at least a little better
Hopefully, they look at least a little better
anilsal
11-06 10:55 PM
Hi,
We are in a critical situation. My wife's AP was approved on 10/18 and the current status is "Document Mailed on 11/05". It also says "You should receive the document within 30 days".
Give it 3-4 days to reach either u or the lawyer.
I also encourage you to get registered with the local state chapter. :)
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72&Itemid=52
We are in a critical situation. My wife's AP was approved on 10/18 and the current status is "Document Mailed on 11/05". It also says "You should receive the document within 30 days".
Give it 3-4 days to reach either u or the lawyer.
I also encourage you to get registered with the local state chapter. :)
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72&Itemid=52
hiralal
08-08 03:03 PM
good post ..actually H1 program has become like a witchhunt (for better or not) ..I heard similar stories for those in cognizant (I thought it was a good company but I remember reading some postings which were contrary to my thought ) . one of my friend is having trouble with h1 extension ..it keeps getting denied.
checklaw
07-19 11:30 AM
CIS AFM (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=724ce55f1a60168e48ce159d28615 0e2)
Thanks very informative.
Thanks very informative.
Pallavi79
02-15 09:28 AM
<quote>In light of the bill that has been passed which doesnot allow forfresh H-1 B as well as H-1 B renewals</quote>
there is no such law. I understand now a days frequent RFEs. But you can take it easy as long as you have job.
there is no such law. I understand now a days frequent RFEs. But you can take it easy as long as you have job.
