kopra
02-25 01:07 PM
Since you were working all these times, please carry the W2 for 2008 ( for both of you). They may/may not ask for this, but its safe to carry the document
I am currently on H1 but planning to go on H4 due to current economic scenario.
I am planning to go to India due to some family reason and planning to get COS from H1 to H4 in India.
I have my salary slips and my husband has also maintained his status throughout.
Has anyone heard any horror stories about H4 stamping cases getting denied.
What documents they ask for when you go for COS from H1 to H4. Besides salary slips can they ask for my W-2's or they need my husband's W-2's only
I am currently on H1 but planning to go on H4 due to current economic scenario.
I am planning to go to India due to some family reason and planning to get COS from H1 to H4 in India.
I have my salary slips and my husband has also maintained his status throughout.
Has anyone heard any horror stories about H4 stamping cases getting denied.
What documents they ask for when you go for COS from H1 to H4. Besides salary slips can they ask for my W-2's or they need my husband's W-2's only
wallpaper Medium Length Layered Hair
suneel_agrawal
03-10 08:52 PM
Hi,
Following are my USA stay details on L1 and H1-B visa:-
1) Stayed in USA from 01-SEP-2003 till 25-JAN-2004 on L1 visa(expired now).
2) Stayed in India from 26-JAN-2004 till 01-NOV-2004.
3) Stayed in USA from 02-NOV-2004 till date on new H1-B visa(still valid).
I read somewhere that 6 year period for H1 also counts L1 stay. Can someone please suggest, what should be my H1's final expiry date based on above details? Will that L1 stay be counted, even though I went back to India and came on a new H1-B visa?
Thanks,
Suneel.
Following are my USA stay details on L1 and H1-B visa:-
1) Stayed in USA from 01-SEP-2003 till 25-JAN-2004 on L1 visa(expired now).
2) Stayed in India from 26-JAN-2004 till 01-NOV-2004.
3) Stayed in USA from 02-NOV-2004 till date on new H1-B visa(still valid).
I read somewhere that 6 year period for H1 also counts L1 stay. Can someone please suggest, what should be my H1's final expiry date based on above details? Will that L1 stay be counted, even though I went back to India and came on a new H1-B visa?
Thanks,
Suneel.
Blog Feeds
04-26 11:30 AM
The Sojourners are condemning the new law and promising civil disobedience. Here is their leader Reverend Jim Wallace's statement: The law signed today by Arizona Gov. Brewer is a social and racial sin, and should be denounced as such by people of faith and conscience across the nation. It is not just about Arizona, but about all of us, and about what kind of country we want to be. It is not only mean-spirited - it will be ineffective and will only serve to further divide communities in Arizona, making everyone more fearful and less safe. This radical new measure,...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/christian-organization-vows-to-defy-arizona-law.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/christian-organization-vows-to-defy-arizona-law.html)
2011 Medium Length Bob Hairstyles
reddog
01-29 10:57 AM
Well, if you leave your co. now and also want your GC then:
Your H1 period will be over after 6 years irrespective of the I-140 from the old co.
GC: You do have to start from scratch.
However, you can still maintain your PD if your prev. co does not revoke the I-140. The documentation of your Old PD is to be attached with the New I-140.
Your H1 period will be over after 6 years irrespective of the I-140 from the old co.
GC: You do have to start from scratch.
However, you can still maintain your PD if your prev. co does not revoke the I-140. The documentation of your Old PD is to be attached with the New I-140.
more...
iiscterp
06-08 02:32 PM
all,
I am kind of a novice.
could you guys tell me where I can find the text of the immigration bill?.
I am kind of a novice.
could you guys tell me where I can find the text of the immigration bill?.
Sumedha_inCal
05-04 02:38 PM
Dear All,
I have a question regarding the H1b visa quotas.
The USCIS website stated on April 20th that they are still accepting applications as the H1 quota of 65000+ 20000(Masters) was not full.
Does anyone have any information about the latest news in this regard?
Has the cap been met or are they still accepting applications?
Thank you all.
I have a question regarding the H1b visa quotas.
The USCIS website stated on April 20th that they are still accepting applications as the H1 quota of 65000+ 20000(Masters) was not full.
Does anyone have any information about the latest news in this regard?
Has the cap been met or are they still accepting applications?
Thank you all.
more...
new_horizon
03-31 10:57 AM
looks like she abondoned her green card. but who know they may be some loopholes to re-instate it. Get a good lawyer & find a good excuse. good luck.
2010 Mid-Length blonde ob
insight08
01-14 09:47 PM
In 2002, I left my employer(A) and joined another company(B). New employer applied for my h1b and in 3 months we got an RFE. Coincidentally, I did not like that job and just left that employer(B) to join the previous employer(A).Never tried to get the h1b reciept from. Now that company is folded and there is no information about that company(B). Later that year, company B gave me a W2 for 3 months pay which I had to file later that year.
While applying for 485 in june 2007, in mad rush I had to fill up G-325 form and I did not write anything about working for company(B) for 3 months. Rather I mentioned that I worked for Company A thru 2002.
Thanks in advance for your help. Lazycis, UN and any other gurus , please help!!!
Could USCIS find that out? If so, am I in trouble? How to overcome this situation?
While applying for 485 in june 2007, in mad rush I had to fill up G-325 form and I did not write anything about working for company(B) for 3 months. Rather I mentioned that I worked for Company A thru 2002.
Thanks in advance for your help. Lazycis, UN and any other gurus , please help!!!
Could USCIS find that out? If so, am I in trouble? How to overcome this situation?
more...
kirupa
03-14 04:15 PM
Added! :)
hair Medium Length Curly Hairstyles
roseball
04-21 10:40 AM
Hi All,
I am sure this has been discussed in detail before but I couldn't find the related threads..So i am posting it again..Sorry for the spam..
My wife converted from H4 to H1 last year (H1 started Oct 2007). She has been working for the H1 sponsoring employer since 10/1/2007...She plans to take a break now and relax for a few months for personal reasons...Can we update the I-9 form with her EAD info and work for a few days and then take a break...I know by doing this she will lose her H1 status but we are fine with that as she will be using her EAD moving forward...I am a July 2nd filer with 140 approved, so I dont see any risk in my I-485 as it is a pretty straightforward case...Have been with only 1 employer since Jan 2001 with PD: Nov, 2003 EB-3 India.
I just wanted to check if this is ok...Any thing that we need to look into before changing the I-9 to EAD....
TIA.
I am sure this has been discussed in detail before but I couldn't find the related threads..So i am posting it again..Sorry for the spam..
My wife converted from H4 to H1 last year (H1 started Oct 2007). She has been working for the H1 sponsoring employer since 10/1/2007...She plans to take a break now and relax for a few months for personal reasons...Can we update the I-9 form with her EAD info and work for a few days and then take a break...I know by doing this she will lose her H1 status but we are fine with that as she will be using her EAD moving forward...I am a July 2nd filer with 140 approved, so I dont see any risk in my I-485 as it is a pretty straightforward case...Have been with only 1 employer since Jan 2001 with PD: Nov, 2003 EB-3 India.
I just wanted to check if this is ok...Any thing that we need to look into before changing the I-9 to EAD....
TIA.
more...
cox
June 11th, 2005, 01:10 PM
Really nice shots. I particularly like the lower left sunrise(?), because of the sky and balance of land/water. I also like the lighting in the shot of the birds. Are those loons?
hot Medium blonde ob hairstyle
vhd999
10-27 01:42 PM
Lawyer Prashanthi Reddy seems to be very helpful.
She was introduced to me by IV through free conference call and we are planning to use her firm to represent my case.
Everyone's experience is different. So, please do your homework.
She was introduced to me by IV through free conference call and we are planning to use her firm to represent my case.
Everyone's experience is different. So, please do your homework.
more...
house Medium Length Bob Hair Styles.
kufloyd
04-03 09:40 PM
Her fiance is sponsoring her..so I suppose it needs to have her name on it?
tattoo ob hairstyles for medium
Blog Feeds
02-05 06:40 PM
I listened intently to President Obama's State of the Union speech yesterday. The man is clearly a gifted orator. He stressed the need for cooperation between Democrats and Republicans on the big issues facing our country: the economy, climate change and health care reform, but where oh where was immigration? Finally, after the President was over one hour into his speech, I heard the word "immigration". One sentence. It came and went so fast that if you turned to your spouse and said, "Okay, here comes the President's plan for immigration reform", you would have missed the whole thing. Here...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/01/obamas-38-words-on-immigration.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/01/obamas-38-words-on-immigration.html)
more...
pictures Cute Shoulder Length Bob
Macaca
05-19 07:30 AM
A New Reality in Washington, but Can It Last? (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/washington/19assess.html) By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) May 19, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Six months after Republicans lost control of Congress, President Bush is learning the rules of a game that, for six years, he seemed to have forgotten: the Capitol Hill edition of �Let�s Make a Deal.�
In the last eight days alone, talks involving cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking White House officials have produced two surprises: a major compromise with Democrats on trade and Thursday�s fragile bipartisan accord on immigration. The question now is whether the sudden burst of deal-making will extend from these easier targets to the most intractable issue in Washington: the war in Iraq.
It is still far from clear whether the Bush administration and Congressional Democrats can be flexible enough to reach an accommodation on war spending � and indeed, the Iraq talks stumbled on Friday. What is clear is that both Mr. Bush and his rivals are shying from the path of confrontation. Democrats, for the most part, are refraining from muscle-flexing, showers of subpoenas and other displays of new clout. And a White House hungry for legislative victories is working hard to negotiate a vastly changed political landscape.
�The president has become belatedly pragmatic,� said Ross Baker, an expert in presidential-Congressional relations at Rutgers University. �I think it took a while for him to recognize that the ground rules have changed, but he seems finally to have come around to the realization that he�s not working with a docile Congress of his own party, but with people who really have decided that they are going to challenge him.�
The White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, who is the president�s lead negotiator on the Iraq bill, conceded in an interview earlier this week that it had been difficult for the administration to get accustomed to not controlling the legislative agenda.
Yet despite �a fair amount of substantive tension� in the relationship with Democrats, Mr. Bolten said, the immigration and trade deals have left him feeling encouraged.
�We have some ways to go,� he said, �but there is a process of confidence building that accumulates over time.�
Maybe so, but after six years of being virtually ignored by the administration, many Democrats remain wary. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, complained on Friday that the Bush White House had �never been very interested in anything except the way they wanted to do business.� Mr. Dorgan said he was not impressed with the fact, given the change of party power, that they are talking.
�That gives credit for low expectations,� he said.
Others, less in the thick of things, sounded more upbeat. Leon E. Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said he had been concerned, once the Democrats took control of Congress, that �an awful lot of blood in the water� would prevent the parties from coming to terms on �low-hanging fruit� like immigration and trade.
In Mr. Panetta�s view, the talks are a good sign. �Whether it can go into bigger areas like the war remains to be seen,� he said. �But it clearly helps build at least a rapport that you absolutely need if you�re going to try to come to a deal.�
Mr. Bush, of course, is not the first president who was forced to come to grips with a new political reality after losing control of Congress. Mr. Clinton did just that after Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 1994. That loss created the political climate that enabled Mr. Clinton to make good on his promise to revamp the nation�s welfare system.
Likewise, the change in November has made it easier for Mr. Bush to pursue his trade agenda and his long-cherished goal of immigration overhaul.
In the trade deal, the administration�s unlikely partner was Representative Charles B. Rangel, the tough-talking Democrat from Harlem. The White House acceded to his demands for child labor and environmental protections in several pending trade pacts, a move that would have been unthinkable when Republicans controlled the House, because Mr. Rangel�s Republican predecessor as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill Thomas of California, would have blocked it.
On immigration, Mr. Bush�s position already seemed nearer that of Democrats than Republicans, and some in his own party are highly nervous about the deal. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, who was majority leader when Mr. Clinton was president, said Republicans would criticize the administration as giving away too much on immigration, just as Democrats criticized Mr. Clinton as giving away too much on welfare overhaul.
�But,� Mr. Lott said, �I would argue that the White House is coming to terms with the reality of the situation in Washington, and they don�t have any choice. We can all get into our partisan crouches and get nothing, or we can go through a process of responsible negotiations.�
Administration officials say both sides seem to be learning as they go. But Iraq is an area where Mr. Bush has been especially unwilling to yield. He has made clear he has little interest in sharing his power as commander in chief.
While Mr. Bush has been trying to strike a conciliatory tone � he said Thursday that he would accept benchmarks for the Iraqi government � the breakdown in talks on Friday was a reminder that Iraq is not immigration or trade, and the president will only go so far.
Some say the trade and immigration deals could actually work against compromise on Iraq. After cutting two big deals, Democrats and Republicans might not be inclined toward another one, for fear that they will look wishy-washy with their respective political bases.
On the other hand, one force pushing toward compromise is that neither side can afford to get blamed for holding back money from the troops. Even so, Mr. Panetta says it is too early to be optimistic.
�There�s some light at the end of the tunnel,� he said, ��but it could get dark real fast.�
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Six months after Republicans lost control of Congress, President Bush is learning the rules of a game that, for six years, he seemed to have forgotten: the Capitol Hill edition of �Let�s Make a Deal.�
In the last eight days alone, talks involving cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking White House officials have produced two surprises: a major compromise with Democrats on trade and Thursday�s fragile bipartisan accord on immigration. The question now is whether the sudden burst of deal-making will extend from these easier targets to the most intractable issue in Washington: the war in Iraq.
It is still far from clear whether the Bush administration and Congressional Democrats can be flexible enough to reach an accommodation on war spending � and indeed, the Iraq talks stumbled on Friday. What is clear is that both Mr. Bush and his rivals are shying from the path of confrontation. Democrats, for the most part, are refraining from muscle-flexing, showers of subpoenas and other displays of new clout. And a White House hungry for legislative victories is working hard to negotiate a vastly changed political landscape.
�The president has become belatedly pragmatic,� said Ross Baker, an expert in presidential-Congressional relations at Rutgers University. �I think it took a while for him to recognize that the ground rules have changed, but he seems finally to have come around to the realization that he�s not working with a docile Congress of his own party, but with people who really have decided that they are going to challenge him.�
The White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, who is the president�s lead negotiator on the Iraq bill, conceded in an interview earlier this week that it had been difficult for the administration to get accustomed to not controlling the legislative agenda.
Yet despite �a fair amount of substantive tension� in the relationship with Democrats, Mr. Bolten said, the immigration and trade deals have left him feeling encouraged.
�We have some ways to go,� he said, �but there is a process of confidence building that accumulates over time.�
Maybe so, but after six years of being virtually ignored by the administration, many Democrats remain wary. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, complained on Friday that the Bush White House had �never been very interested in anything except the way they wanted to do business.� Mr. Dorgan said he was not impressed with the fact, given the change of party power, that they are talking.
�That gives credit for low expectations,� he said.
Others, less in the thick of things, sounded more upbeat. Leon E. Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said he had been concerned, once the Democrats took control of Congress, that �an awful lot of blood in the water� would prevent the parties from coming to terms on �low-hanging fruit� like immigration and trade.
In Mr. Panetta�s view, the talks are a good sign. �Whether it can go into bigger areas like the war remains to be seen,� he said. �But it clearly helps build at least a rapport that you absolutely need if you�re going to try to come to a deal.�
Mr. Bush, of course, is not the first president who was forced to come to grips with a new political reality after losing control of Congress. Mr. Clinton did just that after Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 1994. That loss created the political climate that enabled Mr. Clinton to make good on his promise to revamp the nation�s welfare system.
Likewise, the change in November has made it easier for Mr. Bush to pursue his trade agenda and his long-cherished goal of immigration overhaul.
In the trade deal, the administration�s unlikely partner was Representative Charles B. Rangel, the tough-talking Democrat from Harlem. The White House acceded to his demands for child labor and environmental protections in several pending trade pacts, a move that would have been unthinkable when Republicans controlled the House, because Mr. Rangel�s Republican predecessor as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill Thomas of California, would have blocked it.
On immigration, Mr. Bush�s position already seemed nearer that of Democrats than Republicans, and some in his own party are highly nervous about the deal. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, who was majority leader when Mr. Clinton was president, said Republicans would criticize the administration as giving away too much on immigration, just as Democrats criticized Mr. Clinton as giving away too much on welfare overhaul.
�But,� Mr. Lott said, �I would argue that the White House is coming to terms with the reality of the situation in Washington, and they don�t have any choice. We can all get into our partisan crouches and get nothing, or we can go through a process of responsible negotiations.�
Administration officials say both sides seem to be learning as they go. But Iraq is an area where Mr. Bush has been especially unwilling to yield. He has made clear he has little interest in sharing his power as commander in chief.
While Mr. Bush has been trying to strike a conciliatory tone � he said Thursday that he would accept benchmarks for the Iraqi government � the breakdown in talks on Friday was a reminder that Iraq is not immigration or trade, and the president will only go so far.
Some say the trade and immigration deals could actually work against compromise on Iraq. After cutting two big deals, Democrats and Republicans might not be inclined toward another one, for fear that they will look wishy-washy with their respective political bases.
On the other hand, one force pushing toward compromise is that neither side can afford to get blamed for holding back money from the troops. Even so, Mr. Panetta says it is too early to be optimistic.
�There�s some light at the end of the tunnel,� he said, ��but it could get dark real fast.�
dresses African American Bob Hairstyle
ksvreg
04-28 05:12 PM
My wife and I got RFE on medical. Now I am sending response to RFE. Do I need to send the RFE response individually by FEDEX or Can I send both of us responses in one FEDEX package? Please advise. Thanks.
more...
makeup mid length bob hairstyles.
kart2007
01-12 10:44 AM
Mine is in Nebraska, FP just expired and got them redone.
girlfriend Medium Length Bob in Half Up
orphean
05-05 09:36 PM
Hi,
I recently (a couple of months ago) switched firms. I have a valid H-1B visa stamp from my prev employer (expiring in Aug 2009). My H-1B transfer was approved and I have a valid I-797.
Can I travel to London, for a week's vacation and re-enter with my prev employer's h-1b visa stamp and the new I-797? I've read that this is possible and that folks have done it.
I was wondering if there was any change to the rule or anything I should be aware about.
cheers
I recently (a couple of months ago) switched firms. I have a valid H-1B visa stamp from my prev employer (expiring in Aug 2009). My H-1B transfer was approved and I have a valid I-797.
Can I travel to London, for a week's vacation and re-enter with my prev employer's h-1b visa stamp and the new I-797? I've read that this is possible and that folks have done it.
I was wondering if there was any change to the rule or anything I should be aware about.
cheers
hairstyles girlfriend Medium Length Bob
mysticpine
08-03 10:35 AM
together you have power
divided you have no power and at mercy
divided you have no power and at mercy
BPforGC
02-25 01:31 PM
I already have my 485 pending at NSC. My state comes under TSC jurisdiction.
Where should i file for my EAD, if I don't file concurrently with 485? at NSC where my 485 pending or at TSC?
What are the documents I need to file for EAD?
Thanks for your time.
BPforGC
Where should i file for my EAD, if I don't file concurrently with 485? at NSC where my 485 pending or at TSC?
What are the documents I need to file for EAD?
Thanks for your time.
BPforGC
Queen Josephine
January 6th, 2005, 09:22 PM
Ooops... I posted my reply to the pic in the gallery! To reiterate here, I love this photo... the only distracting aspect is the deteriorating wall in the shadows on the left. I played with some creative cloning and removed it and quite liked the results. Other than that, the color, symetry and lighting all come together in a really compelling way. It's one of my personal favorites!