venkataramesh
07-02 01:14 PM
Done
wallpaper Jessica Alba
mlvats
06-10 10:18 PM
thanks very much
nozerd
01-27 10:31 AM
Why are the numbers for 2000 so low. Is it because it is pre AC21.
Also how are we currently accounting for 245I folks in this model. Do we have good numbers on them ?
Also how are we currently accounting for 245I folks in this model. Do we have good numbers on them ?
2011 jessica alba fashion style. Steal celebrity Jessica Alba#39;s
kumarc123
04-09 03:37 PM
Visa Bulletin for May 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4805.html)
Hey Pappu,
What do you conclude of this? Their has to be some rational reason behind them not moving EB2I, it is hard to grasp that they are still working on 2004-2005 PD's. Is their something we can do bring them in more transparency.
I believe earlier they screwed up and now they are on apposite extreme end, scrutinizing every element.
Hey Pappu,
What do you conclude of this? Their has to be some rational reason behind them not moving EB2I, it is hard to grasp that they are still working on 2004-2005 PD's. Is their something we can do bring them in more transparency.
I believe earlier they screwed up and now they are on apposite extreme end, scrutinizing every element.
more...
feedfront
09-21 12:23 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
GCKaMaara
10-15 01:02 PM
OK. May be my post was little misguiding. I never intended to distinguish EB3 and EB2 situations. We all are in same boat. Just need to counter the issue - one of the proposal was to do a flower campaign. I am not sure you were on forum when we did last time. It was a huge success. I am requesting to do it one more time!
I support the idea of flower campaign. ItIsNotFunny, what is the date you are proposing?
I support the idea of flower campaign. ItIsNotFunny, what is the date you are proposing?
more...
miapplicant
09-10 03:25 PM
Someone please confirm...
2010 of your fashion/style icon
prakashv44
08-11 01:44 PM
People,
Thanks for the post and I am in
Thanks for the post and I am in
more...
nlssubbu
09-28 02:19 PM
Yes, thanks for all your comments, and I would only request everyone to participate more actively on IV stuff. Start building your state chapters, spread the message.
When IV was expecting 10000 people for the rally only 2000 + came. It is obvious that America needs us and we need America and we must all unite to make this a better place.
Jane - your points taken. But, it is not all about rasicm. In a cosmopolitan society, everyone is same. It is just the fact that the communities from the majority opposue us.
A good example is Ron Hira. He is 100% Indian immigrant. He has been one of the architects behind the Durbin Grassley provisions.
So many people who work against us are the recent green card holders. A good example of such people who lurk in our forums is Senthil1. He got his green card and wants to do as much damage as possible for future immigrants, so that he is always in demand and does not face competition.
Since 1970s Indians and Chinese have migrated as doctors and engineers and have been in top positions here. If you are trying to immigrate today - you are a direct competition to their children who are raised here with comforts, they are the ones who influence the govt with restrictive policies.
Recently Jay(logiclife) was on a radio station and the person interviewing jay was a radio jockey of Indian origin. He is definitely not the highly skilled types, and he was behaving exactly like Ron Hira types
Hi Chandu,
Not all GC holders are against the aspiring GC seekers. In fact, I am promoting IV actively to many older GC holders and exposing how bad the system is now when compared to their days. [Say from 10 years ago]. I am trying my best to help many, who are in line with what ever little knowledge I gained during this process. I will be happier one and only if this broken system is fixed and the process is made transparent. I only wish that this will happen during my life time :p
Thanks
PS: I did not had IV during the time when I started my GC process :mad:
When IV was expecting 10000 people for the rally only 2000 + came. It is obvious that America needs us and we need America and we must all unite to make this a better place.
Jane - your points taken. But, it is not all about rasicm. In a cosmopolitan society, everyone is same. It is just the fact that the communities from the majority opposue us.
A good example is Ron Hira. He is 100% Indian immigrant. He has been one of the architects behind the Durbin Grassley provisions.
So many people who work against us are the recent green card holders. A good example of such people who lurk in our forums is Senthil1. He got his green card and wants to do as much damage as possible for future immigrants, so that he is always in demand and does not face competition.
Since 1970s Indians and Chinese have migrated as doctors and engineers and have been in top positions here. If you are trying to immigrate today - you are a direct competition to their children who are raised here with comforts, they are the ones who influence the govt with restrictive policies.
Recently Jay(logiclife) was on a radio station and the person interviewing jay was a radio jockey of Indian origin. He is definitely not the highly skilled types, and he was behaving exactly like Ron Hira types
Hi Chandu,
Not all GC holders are against the aspiring GC seekers. In fact, I am promoting IV actively to many older GC holders and exposing how bad the system is now when compared to their days. [Say from 10 years ago]. I am trying my best to help many, who are in line with what ever little knowledge I gained during this process. I will be happier one and only if this broken system is fixed and the process is made transparent. I only wish that this will happen during my life time :p
Thanks
PS: I did not had IV during the time when I started my GC process :mad:
hair jessica alba fashion style
rajuram
01-25 08:25 PM
There is 500 character limit on the white house web site. I just send simple message saying that USCIS has wasted lot of visas in the earliers due to inefficiency and that they should be recaputred. And that it is causing lot of hardship to well educated people who are here legally.
Sometimes I send a different message (which agrees with new presidents policy about FOIA), I ask the president to get USCIS to disclose pending applications per year per category per country.
Hello rajuram;
We need to keep on sending email/letter to President, Local Senator, Local congressman secretary of Homeland security, secretary of State and Ombudsman.
Please post your email, other members could use same format and send the email. As per my understanding we need to add our story too e.g. when we came, our investment, our capability to buy house and our life is hanging in the middle of no where.
As DallasBlue mentioned to add three items in the email/letter for administrative fixes.
(i) Eliminate per country quota limits
(ii) Recapture the lost visas
(iii) Porcessing dates cannot go back
Sometimes I send a different message (which agrees with new presidents policy about FOIA), I ask the president to get USCIS to disclose pending applications per year per category per country.
Hello rajuram;
We need to keep on sending email/letter to President, Local Senator, Local congressman secretary of Homeland security, secretary of State and Ombudsman.
Please post your email, other members could use same format and send the email. As per my understanding we need to add our story too e.g. when we came, our investment, our capability to buy house and our life is hanging in the middle of no where.
As DallasBlue mentioned to add three items in the email/letter for administrative fixes.
(i) Eliminate per country quota limits
(ii) Recapture the lost visas
(iii) Porcessing dates cannot go back
more...
work4pd
04-03 10:11 PM
?? A new bill in senate to reform H1B ???
I was just watching LuDobb's show on CNN and saw a clip on a proposed bill (being prepared by Sen.Durbin and another whose name I forgot) to revamp/reform H1B program. From the brief discussion, got the impression that the bill is more concentrated on controlling the h1B program with more checks and rules etc. Obviously Dobbs liked it - not sure if there are any other measures in that bill. Also not sure why another bill if CIR/STRIVE act is in works which is supposed to cover all immigration issues. Anyone else saw any related news elsewhere?
Also saw this article (sorry if its already discussed somewhere):
http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/04/03/HNsenateh1bbill_1.html
Here is another news link -
http://news.com.com/Senate+bill+gives+Americans+preference+for+tech+jo bs/2100-1014_3-6172981.html?tag=nefd.top
I was just watching LuDobb's show on CNN and saw a clip on a proposed bill (being prepared by Sen.Durbin and another whose name I forgot) to revamp/reform H1B program. From the brief discussion, got the impression that the bill is more concentrated on controlling the h1B program with more checks and rules etc. Obviously Dobbs liked it - not sure if there are any other measures in that bill. Also not sure why another bill if CIR/STRIVE act is in works which is supposed to cover all immigration issues. Anyone else saw any related news elsewhere?
Also saw this article (sorry if its already discussed somewhere):
http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/04/03/HNsenateh1bbill_1.html
Here is another news link -
http://news.com.com/Senate+bill+gives+Americans+preference+for+tech+jo bs/2100-1014_3-6172981.html?tag=nefd.top
hot JESSICA VS.
harsh
12-12 02:05 PM
I agree. Who or which department of USCIS has the authority to decide they will disallow concurrent 140/485 filing? If that department has the authority to make such a decision they probably have the authority to
1. allow filing of 485 without visa number availability,
2. allow people to start their name check process once 140 is cleared while everyone is waiting for priority dates to become current.
There should be a way to find out who in USCIS comes up with these new rule suggestions. Where do all the proposed rule changes published? At the USCIS press release? May be the actual press release has some information. There has got be to a way to find out from either press department or someone who or what part of USCIS makes these suggestions and then may be we can make send them our auggestions.
1. allow filing of 485 without visa number availability,
2. allow people to start their name check process once 140 is cleared while everyone is waiting for priority dates to become current.
There should be a way to find out who in USCIS comes up with these new rule suggestions. Where do all the proposed rule changes published? At the USCIS press release? May be the actual press release has some information. There has got be to a way to find out from either press department or someone who or what part of USCIS makes these suggestions and then may be we can make send them our auggestions.
more...
house quot;Jessica Albaquot; Style at
alex99
10-16 10:33 AM
Please participate in EB3 Poll
tattoo Read More: Fashion Face-Off:
coopheal
04-11 05:11 AM
EB3-I won't retrogress back to 2001 again. It will keep moving forward at slow but steady pace.
And you inferred this from EB3 Mexico becoming Unavailable in month of May.
And you inferred this from EB3 Mexico becoming Unavailable in month of May.
more...
pictures Jessica Alba at a Chanel
sri1309
09-10 06:27 PM
Actually even the Brits. have a rule in their immigration process stating that if you have spent a total of 10 yrs in that country, that alone is a basis for a PR card there. Citizenship is another 1 yr after that(there is currently some debate about making it 2 mainly over spousal PR cards). This rule is based on the premise that if you have been part of the society for that length of time then you have contributed sufficiently to warrant peership. So by this score, many of those who posted that they have been here since earlier than 1999 would have been eligible even absent the employers assistance.
Given that we have been tax paying, law abiding and patiently waiting through a bureaucratic system that has to date not approved 500K visas that they could have, we have a legitimate grouse to any fair minded person. We have contributed tremendously through our purchasing power and in many other ways to this economy.
As it stands however the system is mainly screwing EB India. Ideally they should start up a Country caps for H1b visas also. Only then will the foolishness of per country quotas for EMPLOYMENT BASED immigration be fully apparent. I see potentially another example of this "managed overflow" system at work here.
It seems likely on the Oct. VB that EB3 ROW would have been afforded a much more generous PD than EB2I. Based on the USCIS's assertion that henceforth spillover will be horizontal before vertical, the presumption can then be that EB3ROW would basically be limited to 28% of 140K, on that basis and recent retrogression for EB3ROW, those numbers should be used up rapidly. I'll bet that this will not happen. A whole lot of "managing" is going on.
I see good response to Citizenship slogan in this short time frame. THATS what we deserve guys after this much screwup.
Also understand there are so many many fully frustrated and screwed up by these delays unable to take it anymore and left the country. They are not typing here, but they took the shots. They too dont deserve this. Remember how thrilled we felt when we first got the Visa(whoever you are). If we all voice together for this, I am very sure it can work.
Lets push for a new rule 3+ years GC, 8+ years Citizenship. We shouldnt be paying for other's disservice. But lets hold on this till 5882 passes or fails.. In any case, we must be pushing for this.
Given that we have been tax paying, law abiding and patiently waiting through a bureaucratic system that has to date not approved 500K visas that they could have, we have a legitimate grouse to any fair minded person. We have contributed tremendously through our purchasing power and in many other ways to this economy.
As it stands however the system is mainly screwing EB India. Ideally they should start up a Country caps for H1b visas also. Only then will the foolishness of per country quotas for EMPLOYMENT BASED immigration be fully apparent. I see potentially another example of this "managed overflow" system at work here.
It seems likely on the Oct. VB that EB3 ROW would have been afforded a much more generous PD than EB2I. Based on the USCIS's assertion that henceforth spillover will be horizontal before vertical, the presumption can then be that EB3ROW would basically be limited to 28% of 140K, on that basis and recent retrogression for EB3ROW, those numbers should be used up rapidly. I'll bet that this will not happen. A whole lot of "managing" is going on.
I see good response to Citizenship slogan in this short time frame. THATS what we deserve guys after this much screwup.
Also understand there are so many many fully frustrated and screwed up by these delays unable to take it anymore and left the country. They are not typing here, but they took the shots. They too dont deserve this. Remember how thrilled we felt when we first got the Visa(whoever you are). If we all voice together for this, I am very sure it can work.
Lets push for a new rule 3+ years GC, 8+ years Citizenship. We shouldnt be paying for other's disservice. But lets hold on this till 5882 passes or fails.. In any case, we must be pushing for this.
dresses Jessica Alba Knitted Fashion
vamsi_poondla
09-26 02:40 PM
Check it out
Dear Reader,
Thank you for your interest in FSB. We admit that there was a
mischaracterization of the Capitol Hill rally in the story and it was
corrected as soon we realized the error.
We have changed the story to correctly identify the mission as a protest of
the long delays in securing green cards for highly-skilled workers already
in the U.S.
We will work to avoid errors like this in the future.
Best regards,
FSB
Dear Reader,
Thank you for your interest in FSB. We admit that there was a
mischaracterization of the Capitol Hill rally in the story and it was
corrected as soon we realized the error.
We have changed the story to correctly identify the mission as a protest of
the long delays in securing green cards for highly-skilled workers already
in the U.S.
We will work to avoid errors like this in the future.
Best regards,
FSB
more...
makeup Jessica Alba VS. Mary J. Blige
immi_2006
09-26 10:29 AM
Check this
http://morejazzbythebay.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/cnn-misreports-purpose-of-immigrationvoice-rally/
Lets spread the message....
http://morejazzbythebay.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/cnn-misreports-purpose-of-immigrationvoice-rally/
Lets spread the message....
girlfriend Jessica Alba, Fashion Rocks
hsm2007
09-20 07:37 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
hairstyles jessica alba candids
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:05 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
cps060
01-31 04:27 PM
If I-140 has been approved, would it still be fine to apply for transfer from H1-B to F1 status by using form I-539 & university issued I-20 ? How long does it take to transfer status from H1B to F1 ? When can one start school �. Only after I-539 approval or after only applying ?
For pursuing an MBA, does it matter if one is on F1 or H4 (spouse is on separate H1)
How long does it take to transfer status from H1B to H4 ?
For pursuing an MBA, does it matter if one is on F1 or H4 (spouse is on separate H1)
How long does it take to transfer status from H1B to H4 ?
mbartosik
11-27 07:50 PM
Nrc2008065862
No comments:
Post a Comment