sameer2730
02-06 05:00 PM
Is H1B stamping subject to the same name checks as in the home country ? Since I have heard people get stuck for long times in these checks, what happens in similar situations when stamping is done in Canada.
wallpaper EV Charging Station!
brij523
02-17 10:05 AM
Putting dollar amount to the signature is something like hierarchy system. People contributed more are on higher rank than others. I am not saying you should not put how much you have donated. But good will be to invite people to join IV. People are our strength. The signature should read
"IV IS VOLUNTEER ORGNIZATION, HELP YOURSELF TO HELP IV. SO DON'T ASK WHAT IV HAS DONE FOR YOU BUT ASK WHAT YOU HAVE DONE TO SUPPORT YOURSELF FIRST AND THEN IV.
MEMBERS CAN EITHER RAISE MEMBERSHIP, CONTRIBUTE 5 MINUTES EVERYDAY TO CALL SENATOR/CONGRESS MEMBER OR CONTRIBUTE.
MY CONTRIBUTION SO FAR IS XXXYYYZZZ"
And this should be the standard signature on everyone post. This way it looks like everyone is in the game.
"IV IS VOLUNTEER ORGNIZATION, HELP YOURSELF TO HELP IV. SO DON'T ASK WHAT IV HAS DONE FOR YOU BUT ASK WHAT YOU HAVE DONE TO SUPPORT YOURSELF FIRST AND THEN IV.
MEMBERS CAN EITHER RAISE MEMBERSHIP, CONTRIBUTE 5 MINUTES EVERYDAY TO CALL SENATOR/CONGRESS MEMBER OR CONTRIBUTE.
MY CONTRIBUTION SO FAR IS XXXYYYZZZ"
And this should be the standard signature on everyone post. This way it looks like everyone is in the game.
Lill
03-02 03:59 AM
oi :D im gonna join too if i can.. when are the last day for submission? (or what its called in english XD hehe)
2011 stylish charging stations:
map_boiler
07-05 04:52 PM
If your labor cert contains language such as "...may work at one or more unanticipated locations", you should be fine with no need to re-start the GC process.
However, I would check with an attorney to be on the safe side.
Gurus, need a lil help clarifying issue in GC process.
I've a question regarding location of work place for a H1B employee filing GC process.
I've learnt that either after filing I-140 or I-485 stage, one should maintain as an employee at the same job position(job description as mentioned in LC) and also the geographical location. I've learnt instances where if an employee is half way through (lets say approved labor or I-140) his GC process has to start all over if he had to move to another branch of the same company in another city/state.
Is this true? I might be wrong about the infomation above but I'm concerned as being consultant, I might have to move to a different city or state if I find a better project and am contemplating whether this would be an issue in future for my green card.
If I'm right, employer has to file LCA for prevailing wage for current city I'm residing now. What will be the process incase I've to move to another city/state.
I'd really appreciate if someone who has better official info or gone through this can clarify my queries so ppl like me can be better informed.
Thanks in advance.
However, I would check with an attorney to be on the safe side.
Gurus, need a lil help clarifying issue in GC process.
I've a question regarding location of work place for a H1B employee filing GC process.
I've learnt that either after filing I-140 or I-485 stage, one should maintain as an employee at the same job position(job description as mentioned in LC) and also the geographical location. I've learnt instances where if an employee is half way through (lets say approved labor or I-140) his GC process has to start all over if he had to move to another branch of the same company in another city/state.
Is this true? I might be wrong about the infomation above but I'm concerned as being consultant, I might have to move to a different city or state if I find a better project and am contemplating whether this would be an issue in future for my green card.
If I'm right, employer has to file LCA for prevailing wage for current city I'm residing now. What will be the process incase I've to move to another city/state.
I'd really appreciate if someone who has better official info or gone through this can clarify my queries so ppl like me can be better informed.
Thanks in advance.
more...
ritwik_ind
11-24 07:52 AM
Good Every one!
;'( I am already out
;'( I am already out
ksrk
12-10 04:36 PM
Just EB1 through EB3 adds to 149579.
Wonder how this tallies with numbers discussed especially during Aug and Sept. 2008...
Wonder how this tallies with numbers discussed especially during Aug and Sept. 2008...
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
2010 Solar EV charging may be
mhathi
07-20 09:08 AM
If you can not locate Indian Student Association (ISA), contact International Student Office; this contact is always available on school web site. Ask them about ISA.
There are truck loads of Chinese and Indians in Engineering + CS. The word can spread very quickly because everyone has friends in other schools also. They may join for the Q/A part.
I doubt they will contribute. Graduate Teaching/Research Assistants make 12K-/year. Others make much less money then the tuition they pay; then there are living expenses. Also, they are not effected by EB retrogression. What is the motivation for such a person to pay when majority of 50K+/year persons (in deep shit) are not paying.
No harm in trying.
I think apart from ISA, the international office is a much better option since people from all nationalities will be affected by this issue to some degree, some more, some less. We should strive to get students from all nationalities that are affected aware of this problem. If they can't contribute money, they can certainly spend some time in webfax/calling senators and organizing state chapter activities.
There are truck loads of Chinese and Indians in Engineering + CS. The word can spread very quickly because everyone has friends in other schools also. They may join for the Q/A part.
I doubt they will contribute. Graduate Teaching/Research Assistants make 12K-/year. Others make much less money then the tuition they pay; then there are living expenses. Also, they are not effected by EB retrogression. What is the motivation for such a person to pay when majority of 50K+/year persons (in deep shit) are not paying.
No harm in trying.
I think apart from ISA, the international office is a much better option since people from all nationalities will be affected by this issue to some degree, some more, some less. We should strive to get students from all nationalities that are affected aware of this problem. If they can't contribute money, they can certainly spend some time in webfax/calling senators and organizing state chapter activities.
more...
mbartosik
06-22 05:15 PM
They charge $2, blimey, that's nothing. They want to increase to $9, hey increase it to $100 and to the job properly!
If I was stuck in name check I'd happy write them a check for $900 not just $9.
This is a typical example of how doing things on the cheap is just plain stupid.
If they are going to do a name check for the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 then how does that affect them. In computing we have to write systems that scale, I doubt their system will scale to cope with an extra 20,000,000 checks.
If I was stuck in name check I'd happy write them a check for $900 not just $9.
This is a typical example of how doing things on the cheap is just plain stupid.
If they are going to do a name check for the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 then how does that affect them. In computing we have to write systems that scale, I doubt their system will scale to cope with an extra 20,000,000 checks.
hair and it looked pretty nifty along with its charging station. Nissan Leaf
piperwarrior
08-14 02:44 PM
How did you come up with $745? I-485 application fees were $325 + $70 fee for biometrics. That makes it $395 per application or $790 for two applications. Maybe your lawyer gave you incorrect advice about the fees??
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.
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.
more...
gcwait2007
06-06 04:54 PM
Hi
I used to work to a client in Phx, got an interview request @ a financial firm in New york cleared it and vendor started processin' my H1 transfer. For the interview or for rellocation i wasn't paid anything. But before the start date bcoz of my credit report client rejected my offer.
But the vendor nuthin' in writing was the one who asked me to resign and bcoz of him was on bench for almost 2 1/2 months, now they say somewhere in the contract which says i have to repay all the expenses they spend on me which was close to $5000.
They sent an email sayin' i haven't provided the services to them from the start date indicated on the contract so have to repay them. Will i have to repay them jst bcoz i signed tht piece of the contract but i was rejected by the client, they said they won't try for new jobs i have to search myself as well they haven't paid me anything since they got my H1.
Do i stand any chance if i contact DOL or a lawyer not payin' them.
Any suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated.
mk58581:
First of all, you have provided incomplete details. It appears that you are at fault for having signed an contract, with out understanding the consequences.
Please mention clearly whether the contract is an employment offer? or a specific contract engagement (CON_W2) hour?. If so, what are the remuneration terms, termination terms, etc. I do not understand where is the Vendor relationship coming from? Every contract is give and take. It is definitely possible to find solution to such kind of problems. If the employer is cornering you for refund of expenses incurred, then you may have to find ways to corner him/ them if any of the contract terms were not fulfilled. One good reason can be asking for salary since commencement of employment with Employer. Whether you are in bench or not, the employer is expected to pay you. I hope you have been submitting your timesheets in a timely manner. Please keep those copies for handy incase you need to take up the matter with DOL. You need to talk some seasoned friends, who can help you to draft suitable reply to your employer. You don't need an attorney at this stage.
I wish you Good Luck.
PS: Your English is funny, I had to read your post few times to understand what you have written nuthin'; sayin'; jst bcoz tht piece
I used to work to a client in Phx, got an interview request @ a financial firm in New york cleared it and vendor started processin' my H1 transfer. For the interview or for rellocation i wasn't paid anything. But before the start date bcoz of my credit report client rejected my offer.
But the vendor nuthin' in writing was the one who asked me to resign and bcoz of him was on bench for almost 2 1/2 months, now they say somewhere in the contract which says i have to repay all the expenses they spend on me which was close to $5000.
They sent an email sayin' i haven't provided the services to them from the start date indicated on the contract so have to repay them. Will i have to repay them jst bcoz i signed tht piece of the contract but i was rejected by the client, they said they won't try for new jobs i have to search myself as well they haven't paid me anything since they got my H1.
Do i stand any chance if i contact DOL or a lawyer not payin' them.
Any suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated.
mk58581:
First of all, you have provided incomplete details. It appears that you are at fault for having signed an contract, with out understanding the consequences.
Please mention clearly whether the contract is an employment offer? or a specific contract engagement (CON_W2) hour?. If so, what are the remuneration terms, termination terms, etc. I do not understand where is the Vendor relationship coming from? Every contract is give and take. It is definitely possible to find solution to such kind of problems. If the employer is cornering you for refund of expenses incurred, then you may have to find ways to corner him/ them if any of the contract terms were not fulfilled. One good reason can be asking for salary since commencement of employment with Employer. Whether you are in bench or not, the employer is expected to pay you. I hope you have been submitting your timesheets in a timely manner. Please keep those copies for handy incase you need to take up the matter with DOL. You need to talk some seasoned friends, who can help you to draft suitable reply to your employer. You don't need an attorney at this stage.
I wish you Good Luck.
PS: Your English is funny, I had to read your post few times to understand what you have written nuthin'; sayin'; jst bcoz tht piece
hot Level II Charging Station
hebbar77
03-15 02:14 PM
First thing is when u have higher salary , u got nothing to worry.
Next job tittle/description have to be similar in words not only in nature(becos USCIS officers are not tichnical folks, they just match words). Also it has to be in similar job code. This code is in the ETA* form filed during the labor phase by ur current employer.
But you can do AC21 with EAD or H1. H1 is safer than EAD.
Next job tittle/description have to be similar in words not only in nature(becos USCIS officers are not tichnical folks, they just match words). Also it has to be in similar job code. This code is in the ETA* form filed during the labor phase by ur current employer.
But you can do AC21 with EAD or H1. H1 is safer than EAD.
more...
house nissan-leaf.jpg
binadh
10-02 11:22 AM
Are there any new updates? My case was filed in Jun 07, responded to the query in NOV 07, and it is still pending?
What the &*^% is going on? !!@$%ing DOL.
:mad:
What the &*^% is going on? !!@$%ing DOL.
:mad:
tattoo This 100 percent EV can charge
sweet_jungle
02-01 11:12 PM
Sorry, if this is already discussed mutiple times. I was not able to find any Info.
My Wife needs to travel to India urgently. She is currently on F1 Visa and has EAD and Advance Parole.
While Coming back is it required to use AP or can she come back on F1. Please help me with some info or pointers to exisitng threads discussing this are greatly appreciated
Thanks,
-Sree
She HAS to use AP. There is no choice of entering on F1. If she enters using F1 visa, it means she has abandoned her I-485. It will create problems later during I-485 adjudication.
Once she enters on AP, she loses F1 status immediately. Then, she should inform her school. School will terminate her F1 status in the SEVIS database.
She can continue studying showing I-485 receipt. EAD card will be her evidence of status.
Once in I-485 AOS status, she will be eligible for resident tuition fees and will no longer have to pay non-resident tuition fees.
My Wife needs to travel to India urgently. She is currently on F1 Visa and has EAD and Advance Parole.
While Coming back is it required to use AP or can she come back on F1. Please help me with some info or pointers to exisitng threads discussing this are greatly appreciated
Thanks,
-Sree
She HAS to use AP. There is no choice of entering on F1. If she enters using F1 visa, it means she has abandoned her I-485. It will create problems later during I-485 adjudication.
Once she enters on AP, she loses F1 status immediately. Then, she should inform her school. School will terminate her F1 status in the SEVIS database.
She can continue studying showing I-485 receipt. EAD card will be her evidence of status.
Once in I-485 AOS status, she will be eligible for resident tuition fees and will no longer have to pay non-resident tuition fees.
more...
pictures Nissan Leaf EV Symposium2
zCool
12-04 02:42 AM
You were supposed to get 92$ / hr for a LC you applied for in 2001??
exactly what is it that you do/did?
exactly what is it that you do/did?
dresses A Nissan Leaf electric car is
JRG
07-19 05:48 PM
Hello ineedhelp - I am also in the same situation. Please post back your experience to this thread
more...
makeup nissan leaf iad Enter Nissan
camarasa
07-12 05:02 PM
"and why the hell discrimination against people from only 4 countries?"
Oh please - what rubbish.
Oh please - what rubbish.
girlfriend vehicle charging station
Illuminae
06-14 02:13 PM
congratulations Soul!!!! :beam:
:flower:
:flower:
hairstyles A Nissan Leaf electric car at
Nil
11-09 09:19 PM
^^^^
drona
07-08 04:12 PM
I have written to Matthew Oh and requested that he mention Immigration Voice and post a link to where people can join in the flower campaign. I will let you know if I get a response if any.
jliechty
May 23rd, 2005, 10:00 AM
The second one is good, but I feel that it's too heavily "weighted" on the right side, with nothing to balance things out on the left side. I only wish that the foreground plant was conveniently moved a yard / meter to the left for you. ;)
However, I'll go with the others and vote for the first one being the best. :)
However, I'll go with the others and vote for the first one being the best. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment