answers_seeker
09-07 09:49 AM
What do u think big companies who cannot sponsor L1 ( have to be with the firm for atleast an year ) do in situations like this.
They sponsor H1 and send them to work here on shorter / longer durations.
So in your case, though you are technically working for ABC, Canada you are still working for ABC per se. This means your visits to the US on your valid H1b will have to be on your company's business.
The catch here is that..at the end of your gc process road, you should be employed by ABC in US. So plan on coming back by that time..
They sponsor H1 and send them to work here on shorter / longer durations.
So in your case, though you are technically working for ABC, Canada you are still working for ABC per se. This means your visits to the US on your valid H1b will have to be on your company's business.
The catch here is that..at the end of your gc process road, you should be employed by ABC in US. So plan on coming back by that time..
wallpaper Pontiac Firebird Trans Am
green_card_curious
03-07 09:56 PM
Thanks Stemcell. I am still on my H1-B, but my wife has been working using her EAD. We are seeing and hearing different things. We are obviously planning to appeal, but the problem is will USCIS cancel the I-485 immediately or will the I-485 be denied with the ultimate denial (after appeal, if thats our fate)? We are hearing it both ways, so am really not sure - but your friend's case gives me a little relief.
looneytunezez
04-20 06:07 PM
Just got my passport renewed at SF.
Applied in person and opted to get it back in the mail.
Got it in hand exactly in a week from application date...(pretty smooth)....
And i used 2X2 in photo instead of 3.5X3.5 cms....both are ok.
They will adjust it properly in your passport for you...
All the best.
Thanks for your responses.
One last question.
After printing the application form, I see that the photograph size is 3.5 cms * 3.5 cms that the consulate requires. But when I check for the passport size photo in walgreens it is 2 inches * 2 inches. Is it fine if I send 2 inches * 2 inches photo or should I cut exactly 3.5 cms * 3.5 cms and paste one in the form and send the other 2 ?
Thanks.
Applied in person and opted to get it back in the mail.
Got it in hand exactly in a week from application date...(pretty smooth)....
And i used 2X2 in photo instead of 3.5X3.5 cms....both are ok.
They will adjust it properly in your passport for you...
All the best.
Thanks for your responses.
One last question.
After printing the application form, I see that the photograph size is 3.5 cms * 3.5 cms that the consulate requires. But when I check for the passport size photo in walgreens it is 2 inches * 2 inches. Is it fine if I send 2 inches * 2 inches photo or should I cut exactly 3.5 cms * 3.5 cms and paste one in the form and send the other 2 ?
Thanks.
2011 2011 Pontiac Trans Am
fide_champ
03-22 08:11 AM
Hi Everyone,
Our Immigration status is EAD and my wife is pregnant,
We are very happy with the news..
There is lot of possibility for us to be in India during due date, based on few important events in family.
We would like to know.. if baby is born in India then what possibilities are there for us to bring baby along with us?
(if mother stays in India for couple of more months)
can baby also get Green Card when we (parents) are allotted green card?
All your advices are always appreciated.
Thanks & Regards,
Satya.
Note: Admins if required, please close this thread and redirect to any existing ones, as i could not find one I have posted a new thread.
It's no brainer. Have the baby in US and then leave for india. You get US citizenship for your baby free of cost and without any hassles. Your baby can get indian citizenship anytime if that's your goal.
Our Immigration status is EAD and my wife is pregnant,
We are very happy with the news..
There is lot of possibility for us to be in India during due date, based on few important events in family.
We would like to know.. if baby is born in India then what possibilities are there for us to bring baby along with us?
(if mother stays in India for couple of more months)
can baby also get Green Card when we (parents) are allotted green card?
All your advices are always appreciated.
Thanks & Regards,
Satya.
Note: Admins if required, please close this thread and redirect to any existing ones, as i could not find one I have posted a new thread.
It's no brainer. Have the baby in US and then leave for india. You get US citizenship for your baby free of cost and without any hassles. Your baby can get indian citizenship anytime if that's your goal.
more...
asdqwe2k
05-22 09:36 AM
Official Press release..
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/NFAPRelease052206.pdf
“This report illustrates that legal immigrants who play by the rules experience significant hardships that harm families, businesses, and, ultimately, our economy,” said Cornyn, who chairs the U.S. Senate Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship. “I believe Congress can address these issues in a thoughtful yet decisive manner.”
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/NFAPRelease052206.pdf
“This report illustrates that legal immigrants who play by the rules experience significant hardships that harm families, businesses, and, ultimately, our economy,” said Cornyn, who chairs the U.S. Senate Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship. “I believe Congress can address these issues in a thoughtful yet decisive manner.”
texcan
07-29 10:48 PM
I have a unique problem with possibly getting a green card too early. Please let me know how I can make this situation better. My priority date in EB2 India is in Jan 2006, which means potentially I could get my green card in 2-3 months.
I plan to get engaged in December 2008 and married in December 2009 to an Indian born Australian citizen. As far as I can see, her chargeability would be from India.
What are my options to make my life easier and to be able to successfully bring my future wife to the US the easiest possible way. So far, I have 2 options:
1. Use the special E3 work visa for Australian citizens.
2. If I dont get my GC within the next few months, do an early court marriage and invoke the following-to-join spouse when she is ready to come to the US.
well ...if the option is between "difficult spouse"/"GC " why bother with either....I thought of something else when i saw the title. pls donot mind...
On serious note, Since your spouse is australian citizen you can easily use E3 visa ( its very simple) or better yet just go ahead and marry her in court right away, register marriage and have the big gala family ....marriage event later.
My 2 cents...take it easy and make it simple. Its a happy occasion donot waste time on immigration issue in next few months, enjoy the courtship time...immigration will fall in place and even if not ...life matters.
I plan to get engaged in December 2008 and married in December 2009 to an Indian born Australian citizen. As far as I can see, her chargeability would be from India.
What are my options to make my life easier and to be able to successfully bring my future wife to the US the easiest possible way. So far, I have 2 options:
1. Use the special E3 work visa for Australian citizens.
2. If I dont get my GC within the next few months, do an early court marriage and invoke the following-to-join spouse when she is ready to come to the US.
well ...if the option is between "difficult spouse"/"GC " why bother with either....I thought of something else when i saw the title. pls donot mind...
On serious note, Since your spouse is australian citizen you can easily use E3 visa ( its very simple) or better yet just go ahead and marry her in court right away, register marriage and have the big gala family ....marriage event later.
My 2 cents...take it easy and make it simple. Its a happy occasion donot waste time on immigration issue in next few months, enjoy the courtship time...immigration will fall in place and even if not ...life matters.
more...
gc_kaavaali
12-24 10:17 PM
Okay...i will try my best to keep this thread on top...
This thread has to stay on top
This thread has to stay on top
2010 pontiac trans-am wallpaper
BPforGC
06-23 04:12 PM
Guys,
Lets focus energies on "Reuniting Families Act". Use this word. Its important. Visa recapture is part of it, but emphasize "FAMILY".
We need this bill and 350,000 VISAS that come with it. We have to make sure that those VISAs don't need to used 'per country' basis. Those VISAs must be distributed to whoever is in line, no matter which country they belong to.
IV core, please focus on this. We need this bill and all those recaptured VISAs can be used for anyone in the line, pre-adjudication complete and held-up because there is no VISA, irrespective of the changeability.
Lets focus energies on "Reuniting Families Act". Use this word. Its important. Visa recapture is part of it, but emphasize "FAMILY".
We need this bill and 350,000 VISAS that come with it. We have to make sure that those VISAs don't need to used 'per country' basis. Those VISAs must be distributed to whoever is in line, no matter which country they belong to.
IV core, please focus on this. We need this bill and all those recaptured VISAs can be used for anyone in the line, pre-adjudication complete and held-up because there is no VISA, irrespective of the changeability.
more...
tikka
08-07 11:31 AM
how bad can that be.. :D
any other tri state members want to be a part of IV?
any other tri state members want to be a part of IV?
hair Patrick#39;s Pontiac Trans Am
vani
08-26 11:39 AM
Thank you very much for your prompt reply. Greatly appreciate.
I paid the money to my company who has applied for my H1B. I am not too sure whom they will address the check to. They only sent me the Fedex tracking no. which tells that the application is received by USCIS, Vermont on April 7th.
I am fine if it is taking time but my only concern is whether this company has really sent my H1B petition. Is there any way to find it out?
Regds,
Vani
I paid the money to my company who has applied for my H1B. I am not too sure whom they will address the check to. They only sent me the Fedex tracking no. which tells that the application is received by USCIS, Vermont on April 7th.
I am fine if it is taking time but my only concern is whether this company has really sent my H1B petition. Is there any way to find it out?
Regds,
Vani
more...
Joey Foley
May 17th, 2005, 06:55 AM
There are several spots in the Indy area where you can get such a perspective. One with easy access is high atop Crown Hill cemetary (i.e., the James Whitcomb Riley hilltop gravesite). Sunrise or sunset would be your best bet unless you hit on a really crystal-clear day with no midday haze. You might find something close to what you are after around 16th and Georgetown road, too ;)
Awesome idea!
Anymore idea anyone while I'm out and about on my day off?;)
Awesome idea!
Anymore idea anyone while I'm out and about on my day off?;)
hot 2000 Pontiac Trans Am Pictures
Life2Live
12-10 01:00 PM
It looks like it is not even safe using AC21 after 180 days. Look at the following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15993
His I-140 revoked after 2.5 years...ridiculous..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15993
His I-140 revoked after 2.5 years...ridiculous..
more...
house Lingenfelter Trans Am Concept
HRPRO
03-07 11:29 AM
I haven't file 485 and have no EAD.
Just an approved 140 with looming layoffs.
How many years do you have left on your H-1?
Just an approved 140 with looming layoffs.
How many years do you have left on your H-1?
tattoo 1969 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am
bsbawa10
08-15 12:11 PM
USCIS does not seem to be corrupt. It seems to be running by proxy with no accountability, no follow ups on what they do, and they always make excuses to show that they follow rules ...(which are breakable).
more...
pictures 2002 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am
pcs
01-03 04:02 PM
Can we make it flexible so that the jump in amount can be as low as possible with a $20 minimum
dresses 1998 Trans Am
go_gc_way
09-22 02:50 PM
Good idea !!
I am with you folks. When I have added new members, I will let you know names.
Please keep this thread alive.
I am with you folks. When I have added new members, I will let you know names.
Please keep this thread alive.
more...
makeup the #39;78 Pontiac Trans Am
Blog Feeds
02-25 07:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0rkAsPwooG_bBWr3YiOfQ4rFUMy5IWDY6HIg2z24j_S_v5KCoUw53fA46TzJAant1Lc9Z7cjigLq9zxR5SrgsEVy7q7E82WY47bmSjeyuP0g9nL_NmuYK1x_nEY8wY605OXlmUOQkT-4/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0rkAsPwooG_bBWr3YiOfQ4rFUMy5IWDY6HIg2z24j_S_v5KCoUw53fA46TzJAant1Lc9Z7cjigLq9zxR5SrgsEVy7q7E82WY47bmSjeyuP0g9nL_NmuYK1x_nEY8wY605OXlmUOQkT-4/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0rkAsPwooG_bBWr3YiOfQ4rFUMy5IWDY6HIg2z24j_S_v5KCoUw53fA46TzJAant1Lc9Z7cjigLq9zxR5SrgsEVy7q7E82WY47bmSjeyuP0g9nL_NmuYK1x_nEY8wY605OXlmUOQkT-4/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0rkAsPwooG_bBWr3YiOfQ4rFUMy5IWDY6HIg2z24j_S_v5KCoUw53fA46TzJAant1Lc9Z7cjigLq9zxR5SrgsEVy7q7E82WY47bmSjeyuP0g9nL_NmuYK1x_nEY8wY605OXlmUOQkT-4/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
girlfriend 1979 Pontiac Trans Am Image
Blog Feeds
01-25 02:20 PM
Last week, Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) introduced the Bipartisan Reform of Immigration through Good Enforcement Resolution in the lower house of Congress. According to Congressman Chaffetz, the resolution does three things: � make E-Verify mandatory for all employers, and hold employees accountable as well; � provide sufficient border infrastructure and manpower to secure and control our borders; and, � reject amnesty and any legal status which pardons those here in violation of our laws. At first I thought this was the usual anti-immigrant measure we expect to see from the folks in the Immigration Reform Caucus. But an interview with...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/compromises-coming-on-immigration-reform.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/compromises-coming-on-immigration-reform.html)
hairstyles Trans Am in 1/18 scale:
hoolahoous
03-18 04:26 PM
Yesterday I went to SSN Administration office to apply SSN for my wife to get the tax rebate, you definitely need EAD if that person doesn't have work permit. So it automatically changes the status from H4 to EAD. I have also confirmed this the officer about the status, he confirmed that the status will automatically changed to EAD. So H4 no longer exists for spouse if the spouse carried H4 earlier. Hope this will answers your question. Regarding the tax rebate, you have to have SSN to qualify, so that's the main reason I went to SSN administration office for my wife.
there is no status called 'EAD' .. it is AOS/I-485 which gives the status. EAD just gives you work authorization. Probably the person who you talked to didn't have much idea about immigration.
FYI, I just got H4 extension for my wife (she got her SSN after showing her EAD few months back). So when you say that , getting SSN automatically changes status, is incorrect. What changes the status is if your spouse starts WORKING using EAD.. then she forgoes her H4 status and switches to AOS/485.
there is no status called 'EAD' .. it is AOS/I-485 which gives the status. EAD just gives you work authorization. Probably the person who you talked to didn't have much idea about immigration.
FYI, I just got H4 extension for my wife (she got her SSN after showing her EAD few months back). So when you say that , getting SSN automatically changes status, is incorrect. What changes the status is if your spouse starts WORKING using EAD.. then she forgoes her H4 status and switches to AOS/485.
deepakjain
11-16 11:41 AM
I have a question about VISA stamping.
I had a valid H1B approval till 9th October 2010. I applied for I485 and I had valid Advance Parole expiring Sept 2010. My current visa stamping is expired. I am planning to go to India on vacation and returning in Dec 2009.
My question is
1. If I use my Advance Parole at port of entry to US with out getting my visa stamped in India, will I loose my H1B status?
2. If I don't loose my H1B status, I am planning to transfer my H1B in Feb 2010. Will there be any problem in H1B transfer.
Thanks,
Praveen.
If you enter US using your AP even for the same employer you will no longer have your H1B status valid, you an return back to H1B status only after a renewal. After entering US on AP you need to inform you employer. Your status after entering on AP makes you a Parolee.
I had a valid H1B approval till 9th October 2010. I applied for I485 and I had valid Advance Parole expiring Sept 2010. My current visa stamping is expired. I am planning to go to India on vacation and returning in Dec 2009.
My question is
1. If I use my Advance Parole at port of entry to US with out getting my visa stamped in India, will I loose my H1B status?
2. If I don't loose my H1B status, I am planning to transfer my H1B in Feb 2010. Will there be any problem in H1B transfer.
Thanks,
Praveen.
If you enter US using your AP even for the same employer you will no longer have your H1B status valid, you an return back to H1B status only after a renewal. After entering US on AP you need to inform you employer. Your status after entering on AP makes you a Parolee.
go_guy123
01-11 09:47 AM
The second part also sounds pretty reasonable to me:
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This is still riddled with amnesty....more punitive versions will surely come which the democratic party will oppose for sure.
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This is still riddled with amnesty....more punitive versions will surely come which the democratic party will oppose for sure.