inspectorfox
07-22 09:20 PM
No big deal man...mine was approved in 2 days from NSC..;)
I think you guys just got lucky and should stop yapping!
There are many individuals who are stuck in Security/Background checks in the I-140 stage even with premium processing for almost a year.
I think you guys just got lucky and should stop yapping!
There are many individuals who are stuck in Security/Background checks in the I-140 stage even with premium processing for almost a year.
paskal
04-12 08:23 PM
In other words we can go through CompeteAmerica, as this is the umbrella organization working in this area?
we do collaborate closely with compete america on these issues.
we also requested everyone to get letters from their employers for administrative fixes...perhaps you missed that. we have also constantly encouraged everyone to present these issues to their employers and get support for immigration reform. at least one major corporation's employees in immigration voice have successfully lobbied their employer to become active and help bring immigration reform. the given corporation has been a strong voice and a great asset to us since then.
so you see my friend, it's really up to you. core team or iv leaders can't do this. you can. it's a good idea. go ahead now and walk the talk! hopefully we will see your employer "abc" (that's it, right Harivinder?) speaking up for us soon.
we do collaborate closely with compete america on these issues.
we also requested everyone to get letters from their employers for administrative fixes...perhaps you missed that. we have also constantly encouraged everyone to present these issues to their employers and get support for immigration reform. at least one major corporation's employees in immigration voice have successfully lobbied their employer to become active and help bring immigration reform. the given corporation has been a strong voice and a great asset to us since then.
so you see my friend, it's really up to you. core team or iv leaders can't do this. you can. it's a good idea. go ahead now and walk the talk! hopefully we will see your employer "abc" (that's it, right Harivinder?) speaking up for us soon.
gcinterview
05-12 04:47 PM
I'm a new member on this forum and my case got transferred to MOUNT LAUREL, NJ office.
History:
My 485 was filed in NSC in July'2007.
I have 2 I-140 petitions, and dates are current(Eb2 India).
Code 3 FP done in Dec'2007 and Name check and FBI background checks cleared.
Case got transferred from NSC to local office in April'2009
After about 8 days of transfer to the local office I received Code 1 Finger print notices.
What does that mean? Any one had similar experiences?
Here is the message I got last month.
We transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our MOUNT LAUREL, NJ location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case. We sent you a notice of this transfer. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case has been sent to our, MOUNT LAUREL, NJ location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
Thanks for the link. Looks like I will have to get ready for an interview!!!!
History:
My 485 was filed in NSC in July'2007.
I have 2 I-140 petitions, and dates are current(Eb2 India).
Code 3 FP done in Dec'2007 and Name check and FBI background checks cleared.
Case got transferred from NSC to local office in April'2009
After about 8 days of transfer to the local office I received Code 1 Finger print notices.
What does that mean? Any one had similar experiences?
Here is the message I got last month.
We transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our MOUNT LAUREL, NJ location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case. We sent you a notice of this transfer. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case has been sent to our, MOUNT LAUREL, NJ location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
Thanks for the link. Looks like I will have to get ready for an interview!!!!
alkg
08-13 08:41 PM
see the paragraph in bold letters.................
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
more...
greeku_veerudu
06-27 04:25 PM
Simple solution to your problem is to hire a CEO to run your business. Appoint a CEO a week before her EAD is expiring if she does not get her EAD by that time. You can pay a minimum salary, say $500 a month to run a company. Mind you, technically, she has to give all powers to the CEO including check writing powers. So the person you are hiring should be trustworthy. If she doesn't have EAD, she can not work for the company, not even sign a check or receive a phone call on behalf of the company. She can not even hire a CEO once her EAD expires. So it is important to appoint one while her EAD is valid. She can have this arrangement until she gets her EAD.
optimist
03-14 09:08 AM
H1-B folks are permitted to have sources of passive income from entities other than their H1 sponsor. This includes bank interests, stock dividends, profits from stock transactions etc. Most of these incomes are taxable and reported to the IRS on 1099-INT or 1099-DIV forms. When you open a bank account and get a bonus of, say $200, it is considered as interest earned.
The vital point to remember, I guess, is that H1s are NOT allowed to generate an income from any source (other that H1 sponsor) that needs any tangible work to be done- investments do not count as tangible work.
The vital point to remember, I guess, is that H1s are NOT allowed to generate an income from any source (other that H1 sponsor) that needs any tangible work to be done- investments do not count as tangible work.
more...
eldrick
08-16 01:41 PM
Hi,
My husband's company is paying for his 485 fees but not for me. I'm just wondering if they should charge me a separate legal fee for this case?
My understanding is legal fee already covers for both me and my husband and this has already been paid of by the Company. And now they are charging us a separate legal fee for me also as spouse.
Thanks for your advise.
My husband's company is paying for his 485 fees but not for me. I'm just wondering if they should charge me a separate legal fee for this case?
My understanding is legal fee already covers for both me and my husband and this has already been paid of by the Company. And now they are charging us a separate legal fee for me also as spouse.
Thanks for your advise.
nonimmigrant
03-31 06:16 PM
Congratulations. Enjoy your freedom.
What is the process did you followed to port from EB3 to EB2 ?
New Labor with EB2 Job requirements
I-140 Approval
Port Over EB3 priority to EB2 after I-140 Approval
(or)
Do we have any other route to port over from EB3 to EB2.
What is the process did you followed to port from EB3 to EB2 ?
New Labor with EB2 Job requirements
I-140 Approval
Port Over EB3 priority to EB2 after I-140 Approval
(or)
Do we have any other route to port over from EB3 to EB2.
more...
kishdam
02-07 02:22 PM
Such agreement is not against the law. GC is for your benefit, not employer's.
So technically employer may ask you to reimburse I-485 filing fees (including attorney fees). Permanent residency is I-485 approval. What is the exact language? May be you can avoid paying you can just switch to another employer?
Thanks for all the responses. Yes, I am planning to move before my I-485 is approved (with current retrogession my EB2 PD of 05 may need another 3-4 years to get current unless there is a change in the rules). Infact I am changing jobs next month. What I am worried about is when I give notice my current employer will sure bring up this agreement and might ask me to repay. I will try to convince/negotiate in my own way and try to settle amicably. But if does not happen I am worried about what the employer can do with this agreement - since the exact wording in the agreement says that I have to stay at the employer for 2 years after the approval of permanent residence application. I am trying to find the legal definitionof "approval of permanent residency application" - my interpretation is approval of I485. I will try to reason that my "permanent residency" application is not yet approved and will try to repay some reasonable amount. Hope it works.
For others wondering why I am worried so much - the agreement simply says that all expenses incurred including fees, lawyer charges, other administrative/misc expenses. It worded so vaguely (I know I shoud not have signed) they can throw any bill at me.
So technically employer may ask you to reimburse I-485 filing fees (including attorney fees). Permanent residency is I-485 approval. What is the exact language? May be you can avoid paying you can just switch to another employer?
Thanks for all the responses. Yes, I am planning to move before my I-485 is approved (with current retrogession my EB2 PD of 05 may need another 3-4 years to get current unless there is a change in the rules). Infact I am changing jobs next month. What I am worried about is when I give notice my current employer will sure bring up this agreement and might ask me to repay. I will try to convince/negotiate in my own way and try to settle amicably. But if does not happen I am worried about what the employer can do with this agreement - since the exact wording in the agreement says that I have to stay at the employer for 2 years after the approval of permanent residence application. I am trying to find the legal definitionof "approval of permanent residency application" - my interpretation is approval of I485. I will try to reason that my "permanent residency" application is not yet approved and will try to repay some reasonable amount. Hope it works.
For others wondering why I am worried so much - the agreement simply says that all expenses incurred including fees, lawyer charges, other administrative/misc expenses. It worded so vaguely (I know I shoud not have signed) they can throw any bill at me.
raju6855
02-02 08:31 AM
Its been over 3 weeks since my wife have H4 interview and the passport is still under "admin processing". This week her AP came and I have mailed it to her and now we want to get the passport back and travel on AP.
Now if anyone knows or done the process of getting the passport back from Delhi Consulate, can they please explain?
Thx
Now if anyone knows or done the process of getting the passport back from Delhi Consulate, can they please explain?
Thx
more...
EkAurAaya
03-19 09:43 PM
Once you are 183 days on H1b (significant presence test), you become resident alien for federal tax purposes and file 1040 just like any other resident. From my experience in real estate, I am yet to encounter an IRS form that says H1b's shall be taxed 10% more. Can you request the IRS publication number from the source? I am curious.
Thanks for your response. My understanding was the same as yours, however this came from my real estate lawyer (a good one). May be he misunderstood resident alien v/s foreigner investing here.
I still would like to hear from someone who actually sold a place on h1 or ead their experience.
Thanks for your response. My understanding was the same as yours, however this came from my real estate lawyer (a good one). May be he misunderstood resident alien v/s foreigner investing here.
I still would like to hear from someone who actually sold a place on h1 or ead their experience.
jettu77
03-13 01:14 PM
Congratulations!
more...
wandmaker
04-04 11:47 AM
The work location in LCA was company headquarter in Houston. H1 petition was submitted with LCA from Houston.
I have worked in Colorado from 2005 onwards. Company obtained LCA for Colorado, but did not file amendment with USCIS. They paid wages as per Colorado LCA, also filed CO state tax, etc. This was the scenario for both 2005 and 2007 h1 petitions.
Violation of visa terms. One can not predict the success rate of h4 stamping, it is upto the consular officer. Getting a H4 just gives you an option to make a lawfull entry and live in the US, does not eliminate the risk of 485 denial because one should have maintained the proper status until the filing of 485.
I have worked in Colorado from 2005 onwards. Company obtained LCA for Colorado, but did not file amendment with USCIS. They paid wages as per Colorado LCA, also filed CO state tax, etc. This was the scenario for both 2005 and 2007 h1 petitions.
Violation of visa terms. One can not predict the success rate of h4 stamping, it is upto the consular officer. Getting a H4 just gives you an option to make a lawfull entry and live in the US, does not eliminate the risk of 485 denial because one should have maintained the proper status until the filing of 485.
FinalGC
02-13 01:11 PM
No more slavery to Desi Consulting companies, so help IV to help U get the GC.
more...
paskal
07-08 10:18 PM
nice job
pappu
09-14 06:20 PM
Thanks to all those who tuned in.
more...
answers_seeker
09-07 09:49 AM
What do u think big companies who cannot sponsor L1 ( have to be with the firm for atleast an year ) do in situations like this.
They sponsor H1 and send them to work here on shorter / longer durations.
So in your case, though you are technically working for ABC, Canada you are still working for ABC per se. This means your visits to the US on your valid H1b will have to be on your company's business.
The catch here is that..at the end of your gc process road, you should be employed by ABC in US. So plan on coming back by that time..
They sponsor H1 and send them to work here on shorter / longer durations.
So in your case, though you are technically working for ABC, Canada you are still working for ABC per se. This means your visits to the US on your valid H1b will have to be on your company's business.
The catch here is that..at the end of your gc process road, you should be employed by ABC in US. So plan on coming back by that time..
greenlight
02-18 05:02 PM
go to USCIS cases status page and create an online profile. Then you can add any immigration cases by case number to your protfolio. Once you do that, you can see the Last Updated date everytime you login. Everytime you get status change on your case, the LUD will change. But sometimes, LUD will change without any visible change on your status (known as "soft LUD").
Soft LUD can happen due to routine processing of your case (for example, they update results on FBI namecheck, fingerprint, etc.) or could be generated completely randomly due to general system updates. So LUDs should be taken with a grain of salt.
Hopefully that is a complete glossary of everything LUD.
Thank you very much!
Soft LUD can happen due to routine processing of your case (for example, they update results on FBI namecheck, fingerprint, etc.) or could be generated completely randomly due to general system updates. So LUDs should be taken with a grain of salt.
Hopefully that is a complete glossary of everything LUD.
Thank you very much!
anilsal
08-15 12:11 PM
USCIS is making contradictory statements. First they release an update that they have processed all applications mailed before July 1 but when I call customer service and tell them that my application was mailed on June 11 and that I am still waiting for the checks to be cashed they say wait for 90 days.
Many July 2nd filers have had their checks cashed (as per ). Have you verified that your application reached on June 11 via fedex?
Many July 2nd filers have had their checks cashed (as per ). Have you verified that your application reached on June 11 via fedex?
ujjvalkoul
06-25 06:35 PM
It Has To Be A Desi Man!!
anilsal
01-20 08:56 PM
A passport is provided to an individual as a sign of his citizenship.
I wonder why they are doing 1 year passports.
I wonder why they are doing 1 year passports.
No comments:
Post a Comment