raju123
06-26 12:25 PM
NumberUSA reported following possible amendments. Nothing for EB !!!
If this is the case, we should strongly oppose the bill.
http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/senateaction0507.html
According to El Bolet�n, �the official Senate Democratic Hispanic Task Force newsletter,� the following proposals are now under consideration for possible consideration if cloture is invoked:
Democratic Amendments
* Dodd-Menendez S.A. 1199: would increase the annual cap on green cards for parents and extend the parent visitor visa.
* Webb S.A. 1313: Community ties for [amnesty]
* Baucus-Tester S.A. 1236: would strike all reference[s] to REAL ID.
* Sanders-Grassley S.A. 1332 : prohibits companies that have announced mass lay-offs from receiving any new visas, unless these companies could prove that overall employment at their companies would not be reduced by these lay-offs.
* Byrd-Gregg-Cochran S.A. 1344: adds a $500 fee to obtain [amnesty] and sets aside the revenues collected in order to fund border and interior enforcement.
* Menendez-Obama-Feingold S.A. 1317: increases family points in merit system
* Brown S.A. 1340: requires that before employers can be approved to employ Y-1 workers, they must have listed the specific job opportunity with the state employment service agency.
* McCaskill S.A. 1468: increases ban on federal contracts, grants or cooperative agreements to employers who are repeat violators of hiring immigrants who are not authorized to work
* Levin-Brownback S.A.1486: gives access to Iraqis to apply for refugee status under existing U.S. law.
* Leahy S.A. 1386: protect scholars who have been persecuted in their home countries on account of their beliefs, scholarship, or identity.
* Schumer: provides for tamper-proof biometric social security cards
* Boxer S.A. 1198: reduces Y visa cap by number of Y workers who overstay
Republican Amendments
* Alexander S.A. 1161: requires DHS and the Department of State to notify a foreign embassy when one of their nationals has become a U.S. citizen
* Bond S.A. 1255: prohibits green cards for [illegal aliens granted amnesty]
* Coleman S.A. 1473: outlaws state and local policies that prevent public officials * including police and health and safety workers (except for emergency medical assistance)*from inquiring about the immigration status of those they serve if there is �probable cause� to believe the individual being questioned is undocumented.
* Domenici S.A. 1335/1258: increases Federal judgeships
* Ensign S.A. 1490: redetermines work history for current beneficiaries of social security depending on their citizenship status
* Graham S.A. 1465: enforcement. Still being drafted.
* Grassley-Baucus-Obama S.A. 1441: strikes and replaces Title III on employer enforcement
* Hutchinson S.A. 1440: changes the �touchback� requirement from the time of applying for adjustment of status, as it currently stands in the Senate proposed bill, to the time of applying for the Z visa. Increases the number of individuals required to touchback
* Thune S.A. 1174: prevents [illegal aliens] from [being granted amnesty] until all triggers have been met.
* Chambliss S.A. 1318: Totalization agreements
* Isakson S.A. 1282: Preemption/Home Depot
* Graham: Criminal penalties/mandatory minimums for overstays
If this is the case, we should strongly oppose the bill.
http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/senateaction0507.html
According to El Bolet�n, �the official Senate Democratic Hispanic Task Force newsletter,� the following proposals are now under consideration for possible consideration if cloture is invoked:
Democratic Amendments
* Dodd-Menendez S.A. 1199: would increase the annual cap on green cards for parents and extend the parent visitor visa.
* Webb S.A. 1313: Community ties for [amnesty]
* Baucus-Tester S.A. 1236: would strike all reference[s] to REAL ID.
* Sanders-Grassley S.A. 1332 : prohibits companies that have announced mass lay-offs from receiving any new visas, unless these companies could prove that overall employment at their companies would not be reduced by these lay-offs.
* Byrd-Gregg-Cochran S.A. 1344: adds a $500 fee to obtain [amnesty] and sets aside the revenues collected in order to fund border and interior enforcement.
* Menendez-Obama-Feingold S.A. 1317: increases family points in merit system
* Brown S.A. 1340: requires that before employers can be approved to employ Y-1 workers, they must have listed the specific job opportunity with the state employment service agency.
* McCaskill S.A. 1468: increases ban on federal contracts, grants or cooperative agreements to employers who are repeat violators of hiring immigrants who are not authorized to work
* Levin-Brownback S.A.1486: gives access to Iraqis to apply for refugee status under existing U.S. law.
* Leahy S.A. 1386: protect scholars who have been persecuted in their home countries on account of their beliefs, scholarship, or identity.
* Schumer: provides for tamper-proof biometric social security cards
* Boxer S.A. 1198: reduces Y visa cap by number of Y workers who overstay
Republican Amendments
* Alexander S.A. 1161: requires DHS and the Department of State to notify a foreign embassy when one of their nationals has become a U.S. citizen
* Bond S.A. 1255: prohibits green cards for [illegal aliens granted amnesty]
* Coleman S.A. 1473: outlaws state and local policies that prevent public officials * including police and health and safety workers (except for emergency medical assistance)*from inquiring about the immigration status of those they serve if there is �probable cause� to believe the individual being questioned is undocumented.
* Domenici S.A. 1335/1258: increases Federal judgeships
* Ensign S.A. 1490: redetermines work history for current beneficiaries of social security depending on their citizenship status
* Graham S.A. 1465: enforcement. Still being drafted.
* Grassley-Baucus-Obama S.A. 1441: strikes and replaces Title III on employer enforcement
* Hutchinson S.A. 1440: changes the �touchback� requirement from the time of applying for adjustment of status, as it currently stands in the Senate proposed bill, to the time of applying for the Z visa. Increases the number of individuals required to touchback
* Thune S.A. 1174: prevents [illegal aliens] from [being granted amnesty] until all triggers have been met.
* Chambliss S.A. 1318: Totalization agreements
* Isakson S.A. 1282: Preemption/Home Depot
* Graham: Criminal penalties/mandatory minimums for overstays
anantc
12-18 03:55 PM
Yes,
I would also like to the H3 and L1/B1-B2 processing from F1(OPT) for the intermediate period of OPT(May end) to H1 (Oct 1st).
Can anyone on this forum let me know what is the process & requirements for these to stay in US during those 4 months..
:confused: Thanks.:confused:
I would also like to the H3 and L1/B1-B2 processing from F1(OPT) for the intermediate period of OPT(May end) to H1 (Oct 1st).
Can anyone on this forum let me know what is the process & requirements for these to stay in US during those 4 months..
:confused: Thanks.:confused:
rsdang
10-30 04:05 PM
Dude you have the AP use it... I have travelled on AP multiple time no issues. I have an approved H1 which I dont use any more...
All the best
All the best
andy garcia
12-14 12:58 PM
Now I am working for a company in OPT .
My OPT start at 7/10/2006
My OPT end at 7/9/2007
add 60 days Grace period ,so the date will be 9/7/2007
So 9/7/2007 till 10/1/2007 will have 24 days GAP.
How can I do to solve it ?
You can not work after 7/9/2007.
The end of the OPT will determine when you must stop working.
The 60 days grace period is only for you to take care of business before you go back home. In your case you must wait for 2 months and 24 days before returning to work otherwise you will be in violation of your status.
andy
My OPT start at 7/10/2006
My OPT end at 7/9/2007
add 60 days Grace period ,so the date will be 9/7/2007
So 9/7/2007 till 10/1/2007 will have 24 days GAP.
How can I do to solve it ?
You can not work after 7/9/2007.
The end of the OPT will determine when you must stop working.
The 60 days grace period is only for you to take care of business before you go back home. In your case you must wait for 2 months and 24 days before returning to work otherwise you will be in violation of your status.
andy
more...
GCD
07-27 09:21 PM
Me, Wife and I signed for Daughter on all applications(485(3)/EAD(2)/AP(3))
We also sent signed G28 for everybody for every application( 8 total)
It doesn't hurt to be over cautious.
I hope we are fine.
We also sent signed G28 for everybody for every application( 8 total)
It doesn't hurt to be over cautious.
I hope we are fine.
hemanth22
07-21 09:24 AM
What you should do immediately.
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
This is a very unfortunate happening.
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Among the senators with presidential ambitions only McCain voted in favor of the bill
I am for , contacting the local sentators who have voted nay for this bill
Are there any established methods of doing so
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
This is a very unfortunate happening.
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Among the senators with presidential ambitions only McCain voted in favor of the bill
I am for , contacting the local sentators who have voted nay for this bill
Are there any established methods of doing so
more...
sunny1000
06-11 05:39 PM
Sunny1000,
Please be careful before replying. If you do not know, don't answer.
I have seen numerous posts that say, you can get a 3 yrs H-1 based on your previous company's I-140. (of course, it should not have been revoked). This is based on peoples experience. So don't confuse other people if you are not sure.
Don't tell me what I need to do. This is not a "lawyers only" forum where I have to give the legally correct answer. Based on what he described, I gave the best answer I could think of, that too after nobody answered and he bumped it up.
Re-read my post. As I said, it was my view and of course, there are better answers than mine (desi3933 for instance). If you don't like my answer, ignore and move on.
Please be careful before replying. If you do not know, don't answer.
I have seen numerous posts that say, you can get a 3 yrs H-1 based on your previous company's I-140. (of course, it should not have been revoked). This is based on peoples experience. So don't confuse other people if you are not sure.
Don't tell me what I need to do. This is not a "lawyers only" forum where I have to give the legally correct answer. Based on what he described, I gave the best answer I could think of, that too after nobody answered and he bumped it up.
Re-read my post. As I said, it was my view and of course, there are better answers than mine (desi3933 for instance). If you don't like my answer, ignore and move on.
nixstor
05-14 07:28 PM
This is totally ludacris to me. Even though the bulletin expects movement going forward, there is no assurance that the dates will not go back. On the flip side, I am wondering if USCIS/DOS wanted to fully utilize the 140K visas this year and just moved the dates too much ahead. If thats the case, the dates might not move again or retrogress back further. DOS official Oppenheimer mentioned that atleast 10-11k were wasted last year. I still feel that the dates are going to go back some time sooner or later without congressional law changes.
This means that we have to stay put and work towards our common goal of getting the system fixed.
This means that we have to stay put and work towards our common goal of getting the system fixed.
more...
sheela
09-23 10:09 AM
[QUOTE=smartboy75;292226]09/22/2008: USCIS Ombudsman Assistance Available for EAD Delay Cases
I appreciate your posting this useful info and gave you green.
Is there a 'response time' from Ombudsman office?.
I appreciate your posting this useful info and gave you green.
Is there a 'response time' from Ombudsman office?.
needhelp!
06-16 01:23 PM
Thank you rsdang..
No reason to be shy IVians. The person at the other end of the line is human just like you and it is a part of their job to take our messages and convey them to the representatives.
Folks please call � Lobbying/Calling people is the way things get done in US� Get over your shyness. Just Do it.
I was shy at first and was uncomfortable calling � after the first 2-3 calls I was calling like a pro� its takes half an hour at most�
Please Please Please pick up that phone and call�
No reason to be shy IVians. The person at the other end of the line is human just like you and it is a part of their job to take our messages and convey them to the representatives.
Folks please call � Lobbying/Calling people is the way things get done in US� Get over your shyness. Just Do it.
I was shy at first and was uncomfortable calling � after the first 2-3 calls I was calling like a pro� its takes half an hour at most�
Please Please Please pick up that phone and call�
more...
fundo14
10-15 02:08 PM
Hi All,
I received an RFE on my pending 485 application:
Here is my case:
I am a derivative applicant working on my own H1
Here is the content of the RFE:
1. Please submit a properly completed form G325A. Submit all the documentary evidence to support your employment history listed in form G325A.
2. Clear copies of form W2 wage and Tax statements
3. Complete copies of properly filed Tax returns (IRS Form 1040)
4. Any additional document which confirms your employment history.
5. You must submit a currently dated letter from your intended permanent employer, describing your present job duties and position in the organization, your pre-offered position (if different from your current one) , the date you began employment and the offered salary or wage. Form letters are not acceptable. This letter should be in original and signed by an executive or officer of the organization who is authorized to make or confirm an offer of permanent employment. The letter must also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
I can easily provide all the docs above (from number 1 to 4) but I am surprised why I am asked to provide a letter from my intended permanent employer since I am derivative applicant.
Anyone else in the same boat? please share your experience/ suggestion.
Thanks!
I received an RFE on my pending 485 application:
Here is my case:
I am a derivative applicant working on my own H1
Here is the content of the RFE:
1. Please submit a properly completed form G325A. Submit all the documentary evidence to support your employment history listed in form G325A.
2. Clear copies of form W2 wage and Tax statements
3. Complete copies of properly filed Tax returns (IRS Form 1040)
4. Any additional document which confirms your employment history.
5. You must submit a currently dated letter from your intended permanent employer, describing your present job duties and position in the organization, your pre-offered position (if different from your current one) , the date you began employment and the offered salary or wage. Form letters are not acceptable. This letter should be in original and signed by an executive or officer of the organization who is authorized to make or confirm an offer of permanent employment. The letter must also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
I can easily provide all the docs above (from number 1 to 4) but I am surprised why I am asked to provide a letter from my intended permanent employer since I am derivative applicant.
Anyone else in the same boat? please share your experience/ suggestion.
Thanks!
deardar
12-10 01:36 PM
Some one few days ago posted that the she was was adviced by the lawyer to hand over Photocopies of AP and keep the original for herself.
So do you have to give them the original or have them take a photocopy of it and give you back the original ?
So do you have to give them the original or have them take a photocopy of it and give you back the original ?
more...
saimrathi
08-10 02:45 PM
\/\/\/\/\/\/\\/
BECsufferer
04-19 09:45 AM
Hi Folks,
My fiancee is a MS student and currently has student loan in India being charged at 13.5%. I am wondering if there is any loan that i can get here with a lower interest rate to repay off the one in india.
I would appreciate any pointers or suggestions here.
Dude!
You must be badly in lover with her!... I have never heard about a typical Indian dude worrying about to-be-bride's financial distress. Good for both of you love birds! ;)
My fiancee is a MS student and currently has student loan in India being charged at 13.5%. I am wondering if there is any loan that i can get here with a lower interest rate to repay off the one in india.
I would appreciate any pointers or suggestions here.
Dude!
You must be badly in lover with her!... I have never heard about a typical Indian dude worrying about to-be-bride's financial distress. Good for both of you love birds! ;)
more...
HaveQuestions
04-13 01:43 PM
I have got an H1B reject because LCA did not include the client location. So most of you who say its ok to work elsewhere without an LCA change, you have been lucky!
Joybose
08-14 02:58 PM
Just now my lawyer called to tell that she got all my receipts , filed on july 2nd but my wifes application was rejected for "insufficient filing fees", I had put in a single check for $745 , how can this be, it was both in the same fedex packet, she says it is some "mailroom error", so she sent back the application with a letter and my receipt copy to accept. My app also had a $745 check and that was receipted,
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
Hey, which service center, Texas or Nebraska.
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
Hey, which service center, Texas or Nebraska.
more...
desidas
01-22 11:24 AM
Thank you JAPS19 - This Helps - Thank you.
I dont have H1B for the new company, just employment letter and pay stubs.
Can you please advise why you were sent to downtown? for what verification?
Which airport was your port of entry?
I dont have a lawyer anymore as I got laid off from the sponsoring company and working on a new company with EAD.
I dont have H1B for the new company, just employment letter and pay stubs.
Can you please advise why you were sent to downtown? for what verification?
Which airport was your port of entry?
I dont have a lawyer anymore as I got laid off from the sponsoring company and working on a new company with EAD.
harryom
01-18 01:01 PM
No actually its seems different from the receipt numbers which usually starts with SRC-xxxxxxxxxx
This one seems different like : PIT-xxxxxxxxxxTSC
It doesn't seems to work anywhere.
try entering that number here
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/caseStatusSearchDisplay.do
BUT, I am assuming she gave u the Receipt number for online tracking, which you may already have from ur receipt notice...DOES it start with SRC or LIN?
This one seems different like : PIT-xxxxxxxxxxTSC
It doesn't seems to work anywhere.
try entering that number here
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/caseStatusSearchDisplay.do
BUT, I am assuming she gave u the Receipt number for online tracking, which you may already have from ur receipt notice...DOES it start with SRC or LIN?
gc_check
07-12 05:51 AM
Our lawyer Company has decided to file the AOS application in July
I work for a big 5 Software company & our lawyer Littler Global had taken a stand on July that they will not file our AOS application after the June VB was revoked/amended on July 2nd.
Surprisingly , today we have received a mail from them that that keeping in view our best interest they have decided to file our AOS case in July regardless of CIS receipting them.
Wanted to share this information as it may be helpful for you folks too ...
Vivek
Looks like most of the Attorney's who told, they will not file after the July 2nd revision of VB, are now planning to file anyway. Think the decission could have influenced after the Tuesday's Aila Conf. Call. My Attorney finally gave updates that they would have all the 485's completed and ready to go while monitoring the situation and action of AILA/USCIS and will file if is of the best interest to the applicant. Also, the reason they are holding back now is also, what if, USCIS neither receipts nor rejects the applications and hold them and argue they cannot take an action as the cases are subject to litigation.... then it could be even worse.... Any thoughts on this...Folks share your communication with your attorney's if any details worth sharing.
I work for a big 5 Software company & our lawyer Littler Global had taken a stand on July that they will not file our AOS application after the June VB was revoked/amended on July 2nd.
Surprisingly , today we have received a mail from them that that keeping in view our best interest they have decided to file our AOS case in July regardless of CIS receipting them.
Wanted to share this information as it may be helpful for you folks too ...
Vivek
Looks like most of the Attorney's who told, they will not file after the July 2nd revision of VB, are now planning to file anyway. Think the decission could have influenced after the Tuesday's Aila Conf. Call. My Attorney finally gave updates that they would have all the 485's completed and ready to go while monitoring the situation and action of AILA/USCIS and will file if is of the best interest to the applicant. Also, the reason they are holding back now is also, what if, USCIS neither receipts nor rejects the applications and hold them and argue they cannot take an action as the cases are subject to litigation.... then it could be even worse.... Any thoughts on this...Folks share your communication with your attorney's if any details worth sharing.
mbartosik
11-09 05:27 PM
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bapio&btnG=Search+News
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indian_docs_win_legal_battle_in_UK/articleshow/2530784.cms
Good for them!
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indian_docs_win_legal_battle_in_UK/articleshow/2530784.cms
Good for them!
GCKaMaara
11-26 03:14 PM
there was nothing to be so touchy in those two lines of mine!
He he he. Remember your first year after birth and follow the same practice (you didn't speak during that time :)).
He he he. Remember your first year after birth and follow the same practice (you didn't speak during that time :)).
No comments:
Post a Comment