reddy75
06-06 09:33 PM
I was with Pyramid for less than a year. I had bad experince with them. Although I was enrolled as a fulltime employee I did not get any on bench pay. They are not good at finding you any new projects either. They are like any other desi consulting company just a little bigger.
wallpaper 2011 Lamborghini Diablo VT 6.0
manderson
11-09 08:57 AM
unless you are a European on EB3.
My lawyer told me the backlog is 400K. As an European, I am expecting to wait between 2 to 3 years for my GC. Anything sooner would be a nice surprise!
My lawyer told me the backlog is 400K. As an European, I am expecting to wait between 2 to 3 years for my GC. Anything sooner would be a nice surprise!
flexi
04-08 09:27 PM
Hi there, thanks a lot for all your help - I won't start early at the second employer then but am still a little confused about how long it takes after filing the petition until i receive the receipt. One lawyer said we'd have to do premium processing since i will be back from Germany 4 weeks prior to switching jobs, but from what you guys said that shouldn't be necessary, correct? Thanks!
2011 Download This Wallpaper
Soul
06-14 08:36 AM
:beam: Thanks for all your votes peoples!
I vow never to design to this standard again :P:P
- Soul :s:
I vow never to design to this standard again :P:P
- Soul :s:
more...
minimalist
04-17 01:35 PM
you should have been OK to go out and get back in, assuming you get the Visa. Probably you can do the same even now, if you do get the Visa.
I know one person who was working on OPT and their employer filed for h1. She continued to work while waiting for USCIS approval even though the OPT expired.
Finally when she did get the decision on h1 that it has been denied, she consulted a lawyer, on their advise, left the country immediately and got back in on H4. However, it was less than 180 days since her OPT expired.
I am not sure how the o1 works or if this info may be relevant to you.
Hello,
Thanks a lot for your answers.
Despite the situation sounds illegal and I agree it is - I didn't wanted to make something illegal and was just waiting for my employer to fill the papers.
I am as well what they call a skilled worker, I basically get a o1 visa to work as manager for a big company and I don't give a fuck - but yeah I get another job offer and didn't waited to have the new visa to start. You know sometimes you can take bad decisions, people can tell you things which never happen, and that's unfortunately how life is.
Last week I get another job offer, it's real and not illegal - I worked a lot to get this offer and spent so much time working hard instead to have fun.
I am currently filling a new o1 with a lawyer and plan anyway to leave the US asap. Maybe I will never have this visa and will probably be bar for 3 years but I really need to try to make everything possible.
When I get the first job offer in the US - I was working as manager in Europe, and everything was pretty fine. I accepted this job, sold and gave all the stuff I owned to come here, in the United States, to work. Today I have no apartment or place to live in my country and I know as well that when you get a non immigrant visa you are supposed to can get back to your country easily but it's like hard to keep 2 rent and 2 places.
I will be very grateful if you can give me your point of view about my case and share your experiences.
Thanks a lot
I know one person who was working on OPT and their employer filed for h1. She continued to work while waiting for USCIS approval even though the OPT expired.
Finally when she did get the decision on h1 that it has been denied, she consulted a lawyer, on their advise, left the country immediately and got back in on H4. However, it was less than 180 days since her OPT expired.
I am not sure how the o1 works or if this info may be relevant to you.
Hello,
Thanks a lot for your answers.
Despite the situation sounds illegal and I agree it is - I didn't wanted to make something illegal and was just waiting for my employer to fill the papers.
I am as well what they call a skilled worker, I basically get a o1 visa to work as manager for a big company and I don't give a fuck - but yeah I get another job offer and didn't waited to have the new visa to start. You know sometimes you can take bad decisions, people can tell you things which never happen, and that's unfortunately how life is.
Last week I get another job offer, it's real and not illegal - I worked a lot to get this offer and spent so much time working hard instead to have fun.
I am currently filling a new o1 with a lawyer and plan anyway to leave the US asap. Maybe I will never have this visa and will probably be bar for 3 years but I really need to try to make everything possible.
When I get the first job offer in the US - I was working as manager in Europe, and everything was pretty fine. I accepted this job, sold and gave all the stuff I owned to come here, in the United States, to work. Today I have no apartment or place to live in my country and I know as well that when you get a non immigrant visa you are supposed to can get back to your country easily but it's like hard to keep 2 rent and 2 places.
I will be very grateful if you can give me your point of view about my case and share your experiences.
Thanks a lot
CrazyBoys
01-31 11:50 PM
Normally VISA bulletine gets advertised atleast 15-20 days before date becomes current. You can apply for your wife's I-485 during that time (Mostly from 1st day of the month). I don't know there is any grace period after I-485 is approved. It is better to file for I-485 as soon as date gets current to avoid any risk.
more...
gc_on_demand
10-14 05:56 PM
Sakthisagar & RSM144 many thanks for posting, the spring document has a target date of Oct 2010, I believe there is a chance of this happening sometime with the fee increase, they will have a fee for this. Hope this rule comes into play it is good news for us.
Teddy
Is there any source on any site which gives idea that they are thinking of it. Since we have close to 800 members who joined for filling 485 when date is not current we can ask IV core to make this campaign officially and push for this one. Even we know 800 are not a good strength still it may help if govt is willing
Teddy
Is there any source on any site which gives idea that they are thinking of it. Since we have close to 800 members who joined for filling 485 when date is not current we can ask IV core to make this campaign officially and push for this one. Even we know 800 are not a good strength still it may help if govt is willing
2010 1997 Lamborghini Diablo Image
fundo14
10-15 03:30 PM
Verify your G-325 application form properly especially the employment history you provided. My wife also got the similar RFE early this year due to technical error that we made in G325 form. (My wife applied for H1 but she did not worked through that company mean while she got her EAD then started working for another company, Which voided H1-B, In G-325 we mentioned that she was working from July 2007 but her H1 is valid from October so Officer might have thought that she worked illegally for 3 months) .
We provided w2's, pay stubs and amended G325 etc to prove that she did not worked on her H1 or illegally.
Hope this helps you.
Thanks mailmy_gc.
We verified the submitted G325, all the info related to my work in US is up to date, only thing i can think of is that i missed filling the portion where it asks about details on Last employment abroad. I have filled that part as well now.
As per my attorney, it could also be that they might have misplaced my G325, hence asking for all this info.
what was the outcome of your response? everything went well after that, they accepted the response?
Thanks!
We provided w2's, pay stubs and amended G325 etc to prove that she did not worked on her H1 or illegally.
Hope this helps you.
Thanks mailmy_gc.
We verified the submitted G325, all the info related to my work in US is up to date, only thing i can think of is that i missed filling the portion where it asks about details on Last employment abroad. I have filled that part as well now.
As per my attorney, it could also be that they might have misplaced my G325, hence asking for all this info.
what was the outcome of your response? everything went well after that, they accepted the response?
Thanks!
more...
boreal
08-24 12:32 AM
People who did BSc and BA...have gotten thier Gc approved recently...by getting pre-approved..LC's applying in e2-rir even though they do not qualify in EB2.people who did MS from top schools and stayed with good companies are in e2/ e3 categories are in BEC.....What an irony..
Is there any use in comming here as a student?? anymore..
Well....not everything in life is fair. There are such laws that can be exploited and ppl will do that all the time. No use whining...
Is there any use in comming here as a student?? anymore..
Well....not everything in life is fair. There are such laws that can be exploited and ppl will do that all the time. No use whining...
hair [Wallpapers Lamborghini Diablo
saileshdude
05-20 10:12 PM
From what I understand, if you have an H1b extended based on your Labor or I140 approval, if your I485 is denied, all applications/extensions based on your Adjustment of Status also expire.
From the lawyers' perspective, all of them promoting H1bs is more a business push than a 'favorable situation for the applicant' push.
Most EAD/AP applications/renewals are now filed by applicants directly, whereas H1Bs go thru the lawyers.
But keeping the moolah part aside, why would an EAD be invalid whereas a H1b be valid, when both are based on the Green Card application?
Because there are no clear regulations around what happens to H1 if I-485 gets denied. But there are existing regulations that EAD becomes invalid. So being on H1 gives you an edge. You will not able to extend/transfer H1 but there is no effect on existing approved h1.
Also even if you use EAD you can actually get back on H1 status without being counted against the quota as long as your I-485 is pending. But you will need to go out and get H1 stamped and re-enter. In this particular case, since father was primary applicant he could have sponsored new H1 w/o I-94 and get it stamped and re-enter. Not sure why lawyer did not suggest that.
From the lawyers' perspective, all of them promoting H1bs is more a business push than a 'favorable situation for the applicant' push.
Most EAD/AP applications/renewals are now filed by applicants directly, whereas H1Bs go thru the lawyers.
But keeping the moolah part aside, why would an EAD be invalid whereas a H1b be valid, when both are based on the Green Card application?
Because there are no clear regulations around what happens to H1 if I-485 gets denied. But there are existing regulations that EAD becomes invalid. So being on H1 gives you an edge. You will not able to extend/transfer H1 but there is no effect on existing approved h1.
Also even if you use EAD you can actually get back on H1 status without being counted against the quota as long as your I-485 is pending. But you will need to go out and get H1 stamped and re-enter. In this particular case, since father was primary applicant he could have sponsored new H1 w/o I-94 and get it stamped and re-enter. Not sure why lawyer did not suggest that.
more...
techbuyer77
07-20 07:13 AM
lawyer sent 3 tax returns no paystubs
hot lamborghini diablo wallpaper.
vallabhu
11-13 04:44 PM
India EB3 2004 June.
more...
house Lamborghini Diablo
juz4forums
07-20 04:10 PM
I and my spouse both have green card. We have a kid who was born in INDIA. He has not visited USA till now. The kid is about 2 years.
We are planning to bring the kid by end of this year to USA.
So what visa should we apply for him we are not sure :confused:
A friend told that he had a baby born to him in india and came to usa with in the 1st 6 month to USA and since both parents were having green card, at port of entry in USA, the kid also got greencard for 5 years this was couple of years back.
But in my case, the kid is 2 years AND also not sure what is the procedure now. Is it still true by default the kids automatically gets the green card at port of entry (Is there any age limit I hope may be till < 13 yrs) if parents posses valid green card. Please help me in this situation.
Thanks in advance, ;)
We are planning to bring the kid by end of this year to USA.
So what visa should we apply for him we are not sure :confused:
A friend told that he had a baby born to him in india and came to usa with in the 1st 6 month to USA and since both parents were having green card, at port of entry in USA, the kid also got greencard for 5 years this was couple of years back.
But in my case, the kid is 2 years AND also not sure what is the procedure now. Is it still true by default the kids automatically gets the green card at port of entry (Is there any age limit I hope may be till < 13 yrs) if parents posses valid green card. Please help me in this situation.
Thanks in advance, ;)
tattoo Lamborghini Diablo
Edison99
02-02 10:31 AM
Congratulation maine_gc!
more...
pictures Car wallpaper - Lamborghini
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
dresses lamborghini diablo sv black
.JPG "lamborghini : diablo")
morpheus
04-06 11:06 AM
Does anyone know if the latest Frist amendment to the bill would still allow H1's etc to file for 218 as outlined above? I did some more reading and I am still confident the analysis above is an option for many H1's like myself.
Frankly I'd be happy to wait six years for a GC if it meant I could be out of this continual H1/LC/140/485 rat-race. Being able to be self employed would be a huge positive for me. I'm already on my second LC and I am involved in founding my second new company. For executives the H1/GC process is useless because you frequently get promoted or change titles, and by the time your LC is near processing it's likely that the original application is no longer supportable. Plus, if you own equity in the company that opens a whole can of worms that the USCIS will object to.
I don't care if 218D is supposed to be for 'illegal' immigrants. Hell, I'll learn Spanish! Via con dios! Obras son amores y no buenas razones!
Frankly I'd be happy to wait six years for a GC if it meant I could be out of this continual H1/LC/140/485 rat-race. Being able to be self employed would be a huge positive for me. I'm already on my second LC and I am involved in founding my second new company. For executives the H1/GC process is useless because you frequently get promoted or change titles, and by the time your LC is near processing it's likely that the original application is no longer supportable. Plus, if you own equity in the company that opens a whole can of worms that the USCIS will object to.
I don't care if 218D is supposed to be for 'illegal' immigrants. Hell, I'll learn Spanish! Via con dios! Obras son amores y no buenas razones!
more...
makeup lamborghini diablo wallpaper.
gc_on_demand
10-14 05:56 PM
Sakthisagar & RSM144 many thanks for posting, the spring document has a target date of Oct 2010, I believe there is a chance of this happening sometime with the fee increase, they will have a fee for this. Hope this rule comes into play it is good news for us.
Teddy
Is there any source on any site which gives idea that they are thinking of it. Since we have close to 800 members who joined for filling 485 when date is not current we can ask IV core to make this campaign officially and push for this one. Even we know 800 are not a good strength still it may help if govt is willing
Teddy
Is there any source on any site which gives idea that they are thinking of it. Since we have close to 800 members who joined for filling 485 when date is not current we can ask IV core to make this campaign officially and push for this one. Even we know 800 are not a good strength still it may help if govt is willing
girlfriend Lamborghini Diablo wallpapers
knowDOL
05-19 10:22 AM
I agree with GCBy3000. You can't be so straight forward with your employer that you will not work with him after this contract, after all he is sponsoring your future permanent job in United States. That said, you can always act smart and leave company after 6 months filing of I485. Tell him that you will be with him and if your PD is current you should file your I140 and I485 both now. If you are not in good terms with him, there is every possibility that you lose everything you gained including your PD.
If he is not wiling to file I485 even though your PD is current, talk to him and be in good terms with his so he files it, because it is worth it. PD current means a lot. Even if you I140 is approved and if you change company, you can keep the PD but only if he does not use that LC for some one else. Don't create an opening for him to make more money for your position replacing you.
If he is not wiling to file I485 even though your PD is current, talk to him and be in good terms with his so he files it, because it is worth it. PD current means a lot. Even if you I140 is approved and if you change company, you can keep the PD but only if he does not use that LC for some one else. Don't create an opening for him to make more money for your position replacing you.
hairstyles Pictures of the Lambourghini
bfadlia
03-22 09:51 AM
may be two weeks later than the website indicated, but i got the approval.
Suva
06-08 10:22 PM
I support it.
Ann Ruben
07-14 08:02 AM
Hello Ruben,
Can you help me out on the visa? My employer had sent you an email last week to aruben@srrlaw.us with the subject name "Keerthi Shankar".
Earnestly waiting for your reply.
Thanks.
Hi Keerthi,
I would be happy to help. I don't recall getting an e-mail from your employer last week. It is possible that it ended up in a spam folder. Could you ask your employer to resend today and i will be on the lookout for it.
Ann
Can you help me out on the visa? My employer had sent you an email last week to aruben@srrlaw.us with the subject name "Keerthi Shankar".
Earnestly waiting for your reply.
Thanks.
Hi Keerthi,
I would be happy to help. I don't recall getting an e-mail from your employer last week. It is possible that it ended up in a spam folder. Could you ask your employer to resend today and i will be on the lookout for it.
Ann
No comments:
Post a Comment