jonty_11
07-05 04:41 PM
I have got my canadian PR approval for me and my wife and have sent the passports to the Canadian Consulate in NYC for immigrant visa stamping. To get my PR card I have to land in Canada before Dec 19, 2007 when the visa expires.
I have not traveled outside the US after I got my H1B and am planning to go to Canada for stamping H1B for me H4 for my wife.
Would there be any problem for me to land in Canada since I will not be landing there with the intention to settle but will return after getting my H1B stamped in a couple of days.
Anyone gone through my kind of situation before. Please send me a PM.
I am concerend about being denied entry in Canada and then I will be nowhere because I cannot return to US without a vaid H1B stamp.
there is a Automatic VISA reavalidation Rule that allows u to visit Canada or Mexico and return within30 days only w/o valid US VISA...google it. or search on these forums...
I have not traveled outside the US after I got my H1B and am planning to go to Canada for stamping H1B for me H4 for my wife.
Would there be any problem for me to land in Canada since I will not be landing there with the intention to settle but will return after getting my H1B stamped in a couple of days.
Anyone gone through my kind of situation before. Please send me a PM.
I am concerend about being denied entry in Canada and then I will be nowhere because I cannot return to US without a vaid H1B stamp.
there is a Automatic VISA reavalidation Rule that allows u to visit Canada or Mexico and return within30 days only w/o valid US VISA...google it. or search on these forums...
wallpaper Bar Code Tattoos. arcode
edaltsis
11-12 01:23 PM
You can submit the current (new) company paystub. They will ask for the most recent/current paystub but not the past one. But however it cannot be ruled out that they will not ask previous ones, it all depends on the officer.
GC092003
04-18 11:33 AM
I received a receipt confirmation for my I-140 petition. It shows that they received on March 24, 2006. I tried to check on the status on USCIS website in case status. I could not find my case so far. Does it take so long to be updated. I am worried if my petition is misplaced somewhere...
Please give me your advice.
Please give me your advice.
2011 arcode tattoos for girls.
gc_check
09-08 08:14 PM
No, Did not port to EB3, He is EB3, Filed for 485 in July '07 fiasco. He is consulting his attorney to see, what to do about the unusual approval. Also did not receive the FP, after filing for 485 in July '07 until last month, when they did the first FP mid-august. Pretty sure about that, from what I heard from my friend.
more...
nsveta
04-22 01:16 PM
Hi, This is my first post here and I need some guidance regarding new-H1 under FY2010 quota.
--One of my friend told me about this company in Chicago who is doing H-1s and apparently the quota is not over yet. I am in India and
--Is it advisable to get my H01 filed at this time?
--What if the USCIS asks client letters? They said, the company will take care of it if that happens -- is that even legal to say that?
--What is the probably the CAP will be met by that time they file my H-1 in the next 2 weeks? And am not sure if the attorney returns the money in that case.
Please suggest. Thanks
--One of my friend told me about this company in Chicago who is doing H-1s and apparently the quota is not over yet. I am in India and
--Is it advisable to get my H01 filed at this time?
--What if the USCIS asks client letters? They said, the company will take care of it if that happens -- is that even legal to say that?
--What is the probably the CAP will be met by that time they file my H-1 in the next 2 weeks? And am not sure if the attorney returns the money in that case.
Please suggest. Thanks
DDash
09-22 11:46 AM
....
Thats what GC means to me.
....
On the other hand...Its just the current state of mind...
Very well said....Great post. Often times, we get into a "rat" race and get desperate at times. Do the best that you can with what you have. Dont let the lack of GC limit you from achieving your goals. Dont get me wrong, we should fight for our GCs, but at the same time, dont let the desire to get GC stop you from achieving your goals.
Thats what GC means to me.
....
On the other hand...Its just the current state of mind...
Very well said....Great post. Often times, we get into a "rat" race and get desperate at times. Do the best that you can with what you have. Dont let the lack of GC limit you from achieving your goals. Dont get me wrong, we should fight for our GCs, but at the same time, dont let the desire to get GC stop you from achieving your goals.
more...
sanjose
07-24 07:04 PM
I am a july 2nd 2007 filer with notice date Aug 23rd 2007. In response to my SR, I received the following reply:
"...... There is not currently a visa available to you based upon your country of birth, your employment-based category and your priority date. Your I-485 application cannot be adjudicated until there is a visa available to you. Your case is therefore awaiting visa availability for your category and further review by an Adjudications Officer. ......."
Many people have said that the July 2nd filers cases have been pre-adjudicated.
However the SR response clearly says that my case will not be adjudicated untill visa # will be avalable.
Does anybody know what is meant by pre-adjudication ?
What is difference between adjudication and pre-adjudication?
Thanks in advance for your replies. Any reply will be appreciated specially from the attorneys.
"pre-"
"...... There is not currently a visa available to you based upon your country of birth, your employment-based category and your priority date. Your I-485 application cannot be adjudicated until there is a visa available to you. Your case is therefore awaiting visa availability for your category and further review by an Adjudications Officer. ......."
Many people have said that the July 2nd filers cases have been pre-adjudicated.
However the SR response clearly says that my case will not be adjudicated untill visa # will be avalable.
Does anybody know what is meant by pre-adjudication ?
What is difference between adjudication and pre-adjudication?
Thanks in advance for your replies. Any reply will be appreciated specially from the attorneys.
"pre-"
2010 arcode tattoo on wrist.
sreedhar
11-07 12:12 AM
sreedhar
Keep that GRIN for your later years, this web site is made to help people who are stuck in the immigration limbo.
There are lot of us out there who have their personal decisions at stake.
Agree with you....But I am telling Truth... Truth is always like this Buddy...Do not feel emotion. I am also here for get help from other people and if possible I will help other people. Still I don’t know what is wrong with my previous response bellow…
“Why you worried about PDs...Yours is 2007....have to wait several years”
Keep that GRIN for your later years, this web site is made to help people who are stuck in the immigration limbo.
There are lot of us out there who have their personal decisions at stake.
Agree with you....But I am telling Truth... Truth is always like this Buddy...Do not feel emotion. I am also here for get help from other people and if possible I will help other people. Still I don’t know what is wrong with my previous response bellow…
“Why you worried about PDs...Yours is 2007....have to wait several years”
more...
shutterbabe
11-18 10:21 AM
Biometrics is not needed for EAD. I received mine with "NO fingerprint available" marked on the card. Please call them back or get another infopass and this time, you might be lucky to talk to somone who knows what they are saying. Or just may be, they changed the rule on the fly a few days ago regarding biometrics and EAD.
Hi, I didn't receive my EAD after the 90 days and my lawyer caller the customer service center and they told her that it hasn't been issued because I haven't gotten FPed for it even though I have gotten my FP done for the 485. Is this right? I have never heard of a separate FP needed for an EAD. I am really confused and despite several attempts to make an infopass appointment with the local office I keep getting "no appointments available" notice. My another question is can I get an appointment in an office that doesn't service the region? I live in Southern CT and New Rochelle, NY is the service center that I got my biometrics done and since I didn't get a date putting my own zip code in - I put New Rochelle's zip in it and it gave me openings in New York City. So, can I go see an officer in New York City even though that is not my local office?
Please help, I need to get my EAD soon since my job is waiting for it.:confused:
Hi, I didn't receive my EAD after the 90 days and my lawyer caller the customer service center and they told her that it hasn't been issued because I haven't gotten FPed for it even though I have gotten my FP done for the 485. Is this right? I have never heard of a separate FP needed for an EAD. I am really confused and despite several attempts to make an infopass appointment with the local office I keep getting "no appointments available" notice. My another question is can I get an appointment in an office that doesn't service the region? I live in Southern CT and New Rochelle, NY is the service center that I got my biometrics done and since I didn't get a date putting my own zip code in - I put New Rochelle's zip in it and it gave me openings in New York City. So, can I go see an officer in New York City even though that is not my local office?
Please help, I need to get my EAD soon since my job is waiting for it.:confused:
hair Wrist Band Tattoo
shan74
01-15 10:24 PM
Hi Bhanupriya,
Couple of questions:
Did you directly requested 140 and labor documents in the form, or what was ur statement to request the documents.
Also what are the documents u need to send along with the G639 form. Also if you can mention what to fill in each section that will be of great help.
thanks
Couple of questions:
Did you directly requested 140 and labor documents in the form, or what was ur statement to request the documents.
Also what are the documents u need to send along with the G639 form. Also if you can mention what to fill in each section that will be of great help.
thanks
more...
mnkaushik
06-04 10:02 AM
I got an account verification letter from HSBC Online Savings Bank. Just go to the Bank Mail section and ask for an AV letter. They will charge you $20 or $25 for it. I got it done last month.
hot require a arcode tattoo
amitk81
12-10 02:35 PM
Is it possible to share your sources for the same.
thanks
Amit
thanks
Amit
more...
house arcode tattoo images. arcode
JDM
08-27 12:18 AM
bump^^^^^^^^^^^
tattoo what is selena gomez tattoo.
krishnam70
08-14 04:13 PM
A woman who was traveling alone in the mountains found a precious stone in a stream.
The next day she met another traveler who was hungry, the woman opened her bag to share her food. The hungry traveler saw the precious stone and asked the woman to give it to him. She did so without hesitation. The traveler left, rejoicing in his great fortune. He knew the stone was worth enough to give him security for a lifetime.
But a few days later he came back to return the stone to the woman. "I've been thinking," he said, "I know how valuable the stone is, but I give it back in the hope that you can give me something even more precious. Give me what you have within you that enabled you to give me the stone."
The woman smiled, "The joy of giving!"
Agreed . Joy of giving is a great concept if its voluntary. If we place a condition that this is the minimum amount u can pay or no way we might lose a few members who might want to contribute lesser amounts..
cheers
The next day she met another traveler who was hungry, the woman opened her bag to share her food. The hungry traveler saw the precious stone and asked the woman to give it to him. She did so without hesitation. The traveler left, rejoicing in his great fortune. He knew the stone was worth enough to give him security for a lifetime.
But a few days later he came back to return the stone to the woman. "I've been thinking," he said, "I know how valuable the stone is, but I give it back in the hope that you can give me something even more precious. Give me what you have within you that enabled you to give me the stone."
The woman smiled, "The joy of giving!"
Agreed . Joy of giving is a great concept if its voluntary. If we place a condition that this is the minimum amount u can pay or no way we might lose a few members who might want to contribute lesser amounts..
cheers
more...
pictures arcode tattoo on wrist. with
mallu
06-07 04:09 PM
.
dresses Barcode Tattoo. Done by Rachel
docwa
04-11 03:08 PM
Sure moonlighting should definitely be ok.
Will being a fellow be ok too? Its open only to internists, but is a training program in oncology. Its only 2 years, and looking at to current rate of processing, I should be done by the time my PD (sept 2006) is current.
Will being a fellow be ok too? Its open only to internists, but is a training program in oncology. Its only 2 years, and looking at to current rate of processing, I should be done by the time my PD (sept 2006) is current.
more...
makeup heart tattoos for girls on
Munna Bhai
04-27 11:41 AM
Hi,
I am in a unique situation as far as capture of earlier PD is concerned.
My company had filed an LC for me in EB3 with PD of Oct '03.
I get fed up waiting for that and got another LC filed with PD Nov 05 in EB2.
I have got my I140 approved for the same and also 3yr ext. based on that as well.
My EB3 LC is approved as well now.
My question to somehow capture the PD of my EB3 LC.
Is it possible ? Is anyone in the same boat ?
Regards.
Get I-140 approved for EB3 case and then swtich to another company and start fresh GC and once you are ready to file I-140 at new company, take this approved I-140 for EB3 and port it.
Hope this helps.
I am in a unique situation as far as capture of earlier PD is concerned.
My company had filed an LC for me in EB3 with PD of Oct '03.
I get fed up waiting for that and got another LC filed with PD Nov 05 in EB2.
I have got my I140 approved for the same and also 3yr ext. based on that as well.
My EB3 LC is approved as well now.
My question to somehow capture the PD of my EB3 LC.
Is it possible ? Is anyone in the same boat ?
Regards.
Get I-140 approved for EB3 case and then swtich to another company and start fresh GC and once you are ready to file I-140 at new company, take this approved I-140 for EB3 and port it.
Hope this helps.
girlfriend arcode tattoo. of the arcode
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.
hairstyles tattoo barcode and
India_USA
10-05 10:46 AM
my wife doesnt have EAD or H4. she has AP only which expires in mar 2011 and so does AP stamp on her i94.
she got license valid only till mar 2011.
less than 6 months for $48.
she sent an email to customer service and this is the reply she got
If you have a pending I-485 filed under derivative status of your husband you must be included in his I-140 petition. Is there some paperwork you filed to have you added under his I-140 after you married him? If not other option is to show that you have applied to extend your H4 status after march 2011 eg. I-539. You can get a driver license (if you have not already got one) till your current I94 is valid and then when you apply for an extension you can show the receipt notice and renew for a year or show us a valid EAD card.
i dont have my 140 app and i dont remember getting her name added in 140. and i dont have H1 so no H4 option. so the only option left for here is filing her EAD. cause i dont know if they will extend it on AP alone with expired I94.
Never knew that spouse had to be included in the I-140 stage... Is this a new rule?
she got license valid only till mar 2011.
less than 6 months for $48.
she sent an email to customer service and this is the reply she got
If you have a pending I-485 filed under derivative status of your husband you must be included in his I-140 petition. Is there some paperwork you filed to have you added under his I-140 after you married him? If not other option is to show that you have applied to extend your H4 status after march 2011 eg. I-539. You can get a driver license (if you have not already got one) till your current I94 is valid and then when you apply for an extension you can show the receipt notice and renew for a year or show us a valid EAD card.
i dont have my 140 app and i dont remember getting her name added in 140. and i dont have H1 so no H4 option. so the only option left for here is filing her EAD. cause i dont know if they will extend it on AP alone with expired I94.
Never knew that spouse had to be included in the I-140 stage... Is this a new rule?
fasterthanlight�
08-23 05:25 PM
HOly old thread batman!!!
BharatPremi
09-22 09:40 PM
Gurus,
Yesterday my lawyer received receipts for my spouse and kids (485/EAD/AP) but not for myself. Now my lawyer is insisting upon sending me the copies of the receipts and do not want to send me the originals. With respect to that I have following questions:
1) Is that o.k having copies only or we should have originals? If we do not
have originals what bad may happen?
2) Either my lawyer or I have not received any of my receipts but we
received all receipts of my family. Is this normal? How long should we wait
for my receipts before contacting USCIS? By the way USCIS already gave
me my all numbers for teh receipts and according to USCIS my receipts
already mailed on Sept 14th. What would be advisable action for me in
this case?
3) None of the receipts of my family contain Priority Date. PD field is blank on all receipts. Is this O.K.?
Thanks.
- BharatPremi
Yesterday my lawyer received receipts for my spouse and kids (485/EAD/AP) but not for myself. Now my lawyer is insisting upon sending me the copies of the receipts and do not want to send me the originals. With respect to that I have following questions:
1) Is that o.k having copies only or we should have originals? If we do not
have originals what bad may happen?
2) Either my lawyer or I have not received any of my receipts but we
received all receipts of my family. Is this normal? How long should we wait
for my receipts before contacting USCIS? By the way USCIS already gave
me my all numbers for teh receipts and according to USCIS my receipts
already mailed on Sept 14th. What would be advisable action for me in
this case?
3) None of the receipts of my family contain Priority Date. PD field is blank on all receipts. Is this O.K.?
Thanks.
- BharatPremi
No comments:
Post a Comment