raysaikat
04-28 02:06 AM
Dear Attorneys,
My freind is about to file I-140 application but his family is in India, does his family needs to be here during I-140 filing? if no when does the family need to be here ?
Please reply.
Thanks
At the time of I-485 filing (assuming that he is not choosing CP).
My freind is about to file I-140 application but his family is in India, does his family needs to be here during I-140 filing? if no when does the family need to be here ?
Please reply.
Thanks
At the time of I-485 filing (assuming that he is not choosing CP).
wallpaper Missing You cartoon 3 - search
alterego
07-25 09:33 PM
You EAD or AP may be approved at anytime while your 485 is pending, it is a derivative benefit of the pending 485 petition. If the 140 is rejected then everything collapses like a stack of dominos.
Krilnon
02-27 03:20 AM
Is this hanging on a door by chance?
2011 I Miss You - Comments and
brick2006
06-29 10:26 AM
Anyone know of any good GC lawyers in Chicago Land area...
I need a desi lawyer who knows that PD is portable...
please pass on the info..if you know of any!!!
rags99@hotmail.com
Raghu
I need a desi lawyer who knows that PD is portable...
please pass on the info..if you know of any!!!
rags99@hotmail.com
Raghu
more...
fedupofgc
02-24 11:09 AM
Guys,
I feel that I am in serious trouble.
I am an employee of a company which was recently raided by uscis. My 6th h1 expires April 2009 and we applied for 7th year h1 extension based on
the approved labor (labor filed in March 2008).
I am not sure at this stage, that my h1 will get approved since the company is under the scanner.(I checked the LCA and It shows the work location where I am working and not from IOWA which is good)
So..what are my options now
1) Can any other employer file for extension based on this company's approved labor?.
2) If I join the other company, what documents do I need to show to USCIS that the labor is approved from my old company(the company under scanner)?
Please let me know..what you guys think...Any help will be greatly appreciated
I feel that I am in serious trouble.
I am an employee of a company which was recently raided by uscis. My 6th h1 expires April 2009 and we applied for 7th year h1 extension based on
the approved labor (labor filed in March 2008).
I am not sure at this stage, that my h1 will get approved since the company is under the scanner.(I checked the LCA and It shows the work location where I am working and not from IOWA which is good)
So..what are my options now
1) Can any other employer file for extension based on this company's approved labor?.
2) If I join the other company, what documents do I need to show to USCIS that the labor is approved from my old company(the company under scanner)?
Please let me know..what you guys think...Any help will be greatly appreciated
transpass
11-13 04:19 PM
All those antis who are really xenophobic can hardly understand the contributions of immigrants to American society...Especially organizations like programmer's guild who are against H1B...Open your eyes and check the following interesting link...
Pattie Maes and Pranav Mistry demo SixthSense | Video on TED.com (http://www.ted.com/talks/pattie_maes_demos_the_sixth_sense.html)
Here is the bio...
Pranav Mistry (http://www.pranavmistry.com/)
The dude has been cranking out research papers, has bunch of patents and BTW, would be an H1B. Every univ gets fed funding one way or the other. Does it mean the dude cannot be hired by a US univ? Otherwise, he is gonna take all that stuff back home...Do you see Mr. chuck grassley,what you are doing? Open your eyes, ron hira and guild fellas...:D
Agreed, not every H1 is a genius, but every H1 is an immigrant who works his/her ass off, everyday contributing to americans' social security, medicare funds...
Pattie Maes and Pranav Mistry demo SixthSense | Video on TED.com (http://www.ted.com/talks/pattie_maes_demos_the_sixth_sense.html)
Here is the bio...
Pranav Mistry (http://www.pranavmistry.com/)
The dude has been cranking out research papers, has bunch of patents and BTW, would be an H1B. Every univ gets fed funding one way or the other. Does it mean the dude cannot be hired by a US univ? Otherwise, he is gonna take all that stuff back home...Do you see Mr. chuck grassley,what you are doing? Open your eyes, ron hira and guild fellas...:D
Agreed, not every H1 is a genius, but every H1 is an immigrant who works his/her ass off, everyday contributing to americans' social security, medicare funds...
more...
savioz
02-02 10:55 AM
Currently I�m holding h1 and same time has AOS with my existing employer. I�m continuing my employment based on h1 and use Advance parole for travel purpose. My employer mentioned about not revoking I-140, even if I move to new employer. Since with new client, I�m transferring my H1 visa, I have 2 options with regard to my AOS portability
1) Either just transfers my h1 without porting AOS with new client. Continue with my AOS with old employer, since he won�t revoke my I-140 and provide support for future employment.
2) H1 transfer and Porting my AOS with new client and it does require my job and description mentioned in I-140 matches with current offer.
I would really appreciate, if you provide your valuable suggestion/recommendation. The best option to go ahead with.
1) Either just transfers my h1 without porting AOS with new client. Continue with my AOS with old employer, since he won�t revoke my I-140 and provide support for future employment.
2) H1 transfer and Porting my AOS with new client and it does require my job and description mentioned in I-140 matches with current offer.
I would really appreciate, if you provide your valuable suggestion/recommendation. The best option to go ahead with.
2010 miss you quotes, romantic
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
more...
Blog Feeds
11-04 09:40 AM
No doubt you've already heard from plenty of pundits explaining yesterday's election. But from the immigration perspective, there are some important things to note that others might not be saying. Obviously, it's going to be a tougher environment for measures affecting illegally present immigrants. But let's get into some of the specifics. First, what is the impact of the big shift in the House of Representatives? The losses in the House last night actually don't change that much in terms of the actual likely votes on bills affecting illegal immigration. That's because most of the ousted Democrats were Blue Dog...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/11/takeaways-from-election-2010.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/11/takeaways-from-election-2010.html)
hair dresses i miss you friendship.
surabhi
10-24 05:01 PM
Hi
I am July 2 Filer and got the checks cashed on October 11. The USCIS mailed receipts on October 15 and I received them on October 18th.
Because of high speed winds, my mail box got opened ( unsecured on a single family home) and much of the mail got swept away. I scouted the neighbourhood and recovered all but one receipt notice.
One doubt nagging me is if I had lost any FP notice on that day.
What has been the general wait time to get FP notices from the day the checks were cashed / receipts receieved ? I know it depends on how busy the ASCs are, so particularly interested hearing from Chicago area.
Is there anything I can do from my side to know if I indeed got a FP notice?
Thanks
I am July 2 Filer and got the checks cashed on October 11. The USCIS mailed receipts on October 15 and I received them on October 18th.
Because of high speed winds, my mail box got opened ( unsecured on a single family home) and much of the mail got swept away. I scouted the neighbourhood and recovered all but one receipt notice.
One doubt nagging me is if I had lost any FP notice on that day.
What has been the general wait time to get FP notices from the day the checks were cashed / receipts receieved ? I know it depends on how busy the ASCs are, so particularly interested hearing from Chicago area.
Is there anything I can do from my side to know if I indeed got a FP notice?
Thanks
more...
Blog Feeds
12-03 08:50 AM
Vivek Wadhwa has a cool new proposal for a visa targeted toward entrepreneurs with great ideas and start up capital to launch new enterprises. Here's some of what he writes in Businessweek: Here's how it would work. Suppose a talented engineer who is not a U.S. citizen has a great idea for a new type of search engine and wants to start a company. This entrepreneur wants to start that company in the U.S., where venture capital markets are the most mature, intellectual property laws are strong, and the talent level is high. It turns out that the would-be founder's...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/12/time-for-a-founders-visa.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/12/time-for-a-founders-visa.html)
hot There, there to facebook, i
brij523
03-01 04:52 PM
Friend Paskal is very much right. Also if associates don't want to come in front that is fine. Just find leads and let IV CORE take care from there.
Let me repeate TIME IS NOW.
Let me repeate TIME IS NOW.
more...
house I Miss You SMS and Shayari
WeShallOvercome
09-07 12:59 PM
Supposed my I-485 was approved, am I legally required to go to USCIS, surrender my I-94 card and get a I-551 stamp? Could I just wait for GC to come in the mail?
The card is taking just a few days to arrive these days. Just wait for a few more days. You need the I-485 approval notice to get I-551 stamp.
But I'm sure you won't need it.
The card is taking just a few days to arrive these days. Just wait for a few more days. You need the I-485 approval notice to get I-551 stamp.
But I'm sure you won't need it.
tattoo I love you my Panda - Art
vpadman
12-13 06:36 PM
Applied AP on August 15,2007.
Notice Date is October 10, 2007.
Still waiting for AP
Notice Date is October 10, 2007.
Still waiting for AP
more...
pictures I Miss You Slideshow
vicsthedude
05-30 05:28 PM
Yes I got it for my daughter. The CGNY website lists all the documents required. I sent
only the photo-copies of all the documents they mentioned, each page notarized.
I got PIO card in exactly a week and I live in North west Ohio close to MI border.
only the photo-copies of all the documents they mentioned, each page notarized.
I got PIO card in exactly a week and I live in North west Ohio close to MI border.
dresses boys written romantic
dano
01-02 02:25 PM
anybody?
more...
makeup i miss you, poljubac
ajitskhare
06-11 06:09 PM
My lawyer notified that he has received an RFE for incorrect info on the I-485 Biographic info form. The last entry in the "last 5 years in the US" address list contains a start date of when i was not even in the US. Apparently his assistant goofed up with a typo. He is recommending that i prepare a signed affadavit explaining to the CIS that it was an honest mistake. Would that be enough? Can the G-325 be resubmitted ?
Thanks!
Thanks!
girlfriend Pendant Words I Miss You
virginian99
04-11 02:10 PM
Any body has any idea about Everest Business Solutions INc(EBS) in VA.
Please post your comments about this company
Please post your comments about this company
hairstyles titlequot;Romantic Comments
ameryki
12-19 07:54 PM
Hi All,
I am planning to r2i in the near future. EB-3 India (PD Nov 2005). I will be transfering with the same company that filed my GC to India. Is there anyway for me to keep my application alive?
I am planning to r2i in the near future. EB-3 India (PD Nov 2005). I will be transfering with the same company that filed my GC to India. Is there anyway for me to keep my application alive?
HalfDog
03-13 11:41 AM
Via 5 years ago (First college Spring Break) :hugegrin:
This was made with my thumbs and an ink pad and it's near 20" x 14"
If you're wondering about the horizontal marks, we were encouraged
to crumple the photo (or physically alter) and reproduce the discrepancies.
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/9118/selfportrait5.jpg (http://img57.imageshack.us/my.php?image=selfportrait5.jpg)
This was made with my thumbs and an ink pad and it's near 20" x 14"
If you're wondering about the horizontal marks, we were encouraged
to crumple the photo (or physically alter) and reproduce the discrepancies.
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/9118/selfportrait5.jpg (http://img57.imageshack.us/my.php?image=selfportrait5.jpg)
kprgroup
03-11 02:40 PM
My wife (H4) & I (H1-B) have valid I94 and visa stamped in out passport for company A until AUG2010.Last September 2008, I have transferred my H1-B to Company B and it got approved and valid until same AUG 2010.Right now I am working for Company B on H1B
When I moved to company B, My previous employer canceled my I140 that triggered 485 denied (For Both).Worked with a Lawyer and filed MTR and my (I am the primary applicant)MTR got approved back in Nov2008.I am still waiting for my wife MTR update. Online status still shows - Case received and pending. (For MTR)
1) I am thinking of transfer my wife H4 to Company B. Is there any issue you guys (seniors) think of?
2) One more question .We both has EAD valid until 09/2010. Both never used EAD. We got our EAD before our 485 denied. Now since my MTR got approved, the EAD is still valid?
Please let me know. Thanks for everyone help
K
When I moved to company B, My previous employer canceled my I140 that triggered 485 denied (For Both).Worked with a Lawyer and filed MTR and my (I am the primary applicant)MTR got approved back in Nov2008.I am still waiting for my wife MTR update. Online status still shows - Case received and pending. (For MTR)
1) I am thinking of transfer my wife H4 to Company B. Is there any issue you guys (seniors) think of?
2) One more question .We both has EAD valid until 09/2010. Both never used EAD. We got our EAD before our 485 denied. Now since my MTR got approved, the EAD is still valid?
Please let me know. Thanks for everyone help
K
No comments:
Post a Comment