harishgowda
05-19 08:08 AM
Hello,
My H -1B visa is been approved from August 2008 to September 2011 which equals to 3 year.
I have worked in US from October 2008 to January 2009.
Later i got layoff and my Agent\Consultant said that my Visa was cancelled according to U.S. Immigration regulations and termination of employment procedures.
Thereafter i came to India and started work job here. My company had applied for Business Visa but Today my Business Visa got rejected and they gave me the reason that you dont justify that you will come back. What if you stay back there.?
I am thinking to reapply again in next 2 day.
Can anyone help me what should i do in this case?
Thanks,
Harish Gowda
My H -1B visa is been approved from August 2008 to September 2011 which equals to 3 year.
I have worked in US from October 2008 to January 2009.
Later i got layoff and my Agent\Consultant said that my Visa was cancelled according to U.S. Immigration regulations and termination of employment procedures.
Thereafter i came to India and started work job here. My company had applied for Business Visa but Today my Business Visa got rejected and they gave me the reason that you dont justify that you will come back. What if you stay back there.?
I am thinking to reapply again in next 2 day.
Can anyone help me what should i do in this case?
Thanks,
Harish Gowda
wallpaper Natalie Portman Wears Rampage
jgh_res
05-17 10:01 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
hibhagya
05-15 12:03 PM
Great job and hope the current immigrations bill will pass this year.
2011 natalie-portman-lanvin
GC20??
08-17 12:25 PM
go exact same reply..please let me know if you hear anything about your case
I got the same reply when contacted through two Texas senators.
I got the same reply when contacted through two Texas senators.
more...
snathan
08-18 05:32 PM
They would however have to disclose that period of out of stay when they file the GC as G325 A asks for all status history. In other words, you will get screwed.
Whoever has some approval by means of luck or fluke does not make it the law. They will take the bite when time comes.
Exactly.....You nailed it correctly.
Whoever has some approval by means of luck or fluke does not make it the law. They will take the bite when time comes.
Exactly.....You nailed it correctly.
va_dude
11-06 05:24 PM
This is exactly the piece-meal approach/bill that several people wanted to support.
But i think IV core is backing CIR.
My 2 cents - CIR ain't happening this year (its almost mid-nov now and health care hasn't even been debated on the floor yer). Even enxt year is a long shot.
Need to back this bill.
But i think IV core is backing CIR.
My 2 cents - CIR ain't happening this year (its almost mid-nov now and health care hasn't even been debated on the floor yer). Even enxt year is a long shot.
Need to back this bill.
more...
brintonwhite
06-07 06:14 PM
nice stamps
2010 photo | Natalie Portman
phillyag
07-20 02:09 PM
As my employer wants it - only apply 90 days prior to H1 expiration.
This situation can lead me into limbo state. EAD pending and H1 expired !
What would happen then ?
This situation can lead me into limbo state. EAD pending and H1 expired !
What would happen then ?
more...
cptbaseball
05-14 02:27 PM
Well, you didn't mention in your original post that COS date is 01/10/2009 and I assumed that COS date was date of approval.
In this case, yes your H1 COS is approved with deferred change of status date of Oct 1st. And Hernandez Letter does cover such scenario.
However, please keep this mind (mentioned in that link)
Since when you come back you will have different I-94 number as compare to I-94 number on COS approval letter. This can cause explanation/issues down the line. Please consult your attorney and have professional advice.
Hernandez Letter does not have binding force of law. This is something difficult to ignore for me. But, that's just me.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.
Since you mention that Hernandez Letter is a grey area. To be on a safe side, when I come back on Aug-19-2009 on L-1B, can I file another COS (only COS, not H-1B) with USCIS again with the new 1-94 that I would get at POE. That would ensure now that I am on correct status after Oct 1, but I'm not sure whether this is possible or whether USCIS would decline it stating that it was a duplicate etc.
In this case, yes your H1 COS is approved with deferred change of status date of Oct 1st. And Hernandez Letter does cover such scenario.
However, please keep this mind (mentioned in that link)
Since when you come back you will have different I-94 number as compare to I-94 number on COS approval letter. This can cause explanation/issues down the line. Please consult your attorney and have professional advice.
Hernandez Letter does not have binding force of law. This is something difficult to ignore for me. But, that's just me.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.
Since you mention that Hernandez Letter is a grey area. To be on a safe side, when I come back on Aug-19-2009 on L-1B, can I file another COS (only COS, not H-1B) with USCIS again with the new 1-94 that I would get at POE. That would ensure now that I am on correct status after Oct 1, but I'm not sure whether this is possible or whether USCIS would decline it stating that it was a duplicate etc.
hair Natalie Portman in Lanvin
phillyag
07-20 02:15 PM
If I have applied for 485 can I still do that ?
more...
O'podu
07-13 01:37 PM
:D Just come over with suits, casuals, sneakers and boots in HAND.:confused:
wear the one which online rally member says before walk.
You can come with /without wearing anything. upto u.;)
LET THE RALLYYYYYYYYYYY BEGIN!!!
Here we come USCIS......!!!
wear the one which online rally member says before walk.
You can come with /without wearing anything. upto u.;)
LET THE RALLYYYYYYYYYYY BEGIN!!!
Here we come USCIS......!!!
hot natalie portman, lanvin
whitecollarslave
08-04 04:02 PM
I have a copy of the I-140 Approval Notice. It does not have A# nor any field for A#. What am I missing? Guys, please clarify.
more...
house Natalie Portman
ns33
03-18 04:22 PM
Answers below:
1. Technically there is no Salary restriction. As stated above it is a grey area. But, if the job duties are the same and the salary difference is too big (no one knows how much is acceptable without raising questions), then it brings into question if you are still performing the same duties. But basically, you have to make equal to or more than the LC.
2. I have used AC21 before. Have not done EAD renewal yet.
Have a question about point1. Most of larger corp employees who have been in the wait cycle 6-8 years, entered in this coprs at rather lower salaries compared to current day standards. Once inside, pending GC process, you do not get too much of raise or adjustments (2-5% - more of inflation adjustments every 1.5-2 years or so).
Going out of these positions, within similar technical positions, even at lower - rather conservative end of the current pay scale (on AC21-EAD) it is very easy to reach bracket closer to 40-50% higher. Converting to full time consultants, even in tighter market due to current economy; would actually mean closer to 60-70% difference. How do we handle this? Staying within large corp on FT basis does not make sense financially after all these years. Espcially when EB3 category PD doesn't show any sign of life.
If you have a good suggestion/solution please PM me.
Thanks
NS
PS. this entire rant is about people who have been in the same FT position without promotions and very minimal pay adjustments in large corporations - probably outside west cost. So please keep any and all flaming at my post in the context.
1. Technically there is no Salary restriction. As stated above it is a grey area. But, if the job duties are the same and the salary difference is too big (no one knows how much is acceptable without raising questions), then it brings into question if you are still performing the same duties. But basically, you have to make equal to or more than the LC.
2. I have used AC21 before. Have not done EAD renewal yet.
Have a question about point1. Most of larger corp employees who have been in the wait cycle 6-8 years, entered in this coprs at rather lower salaries compared to current day standards. Once inside, pending GC process, you do not get too much of raise or adjustments (2-5% - more of inflation adjustments every 1.5-2 years or so).
Going out of these positions, within similar technical positions, even at lower - rather conservative end of the current pay scale (on AC21-EAD) it is very easy to reach bracket closer to 40-50% higher. Converting to full time consultants, even in tighter market due to current economy; would actually mean closer to 60-70% difference. How do we handle this? Staying within large corp on FT basis does not make sense financially after all these years. Espcially when EB3 category PD doesn't show any sign of life.
If you have a good suggestion/solution please PM me.
Thanks
NS
PS. this entire rant is about people who have been in the same FT position without promotions and very minimal pay adjustments in large corporations - probably outside west cost. So please keep any and all flaming at my post in the context.
tattoo Natalie Portman braved a cold
gc_chahiye
08-01 01:39 PM
But dont you guys expect improvement after all this fiasco ?
DOS and USCIS will work closely together so dates in VB are more accurate. We dont see all Cs ever again without legislative changes.
What else is there to learn?
DOS and USCIS will work closely together so dates in VB are more accurate. We dont see all Cs ever again without legislative changes.
What else is there to learn?
more...
pictures Natalie Portman Lanvin.
anurakt
01-21 02:12 PM
I joined Immigration voice on orkut. My name is Chandrakanth
Thanks , I see lot of people joining now.
Thanks , I see lot of people joining now.
dresses natalieportman final 280508
inspectorfox
07-17 02:18 PM
Excerpt from Gregs blog and comments :(
"Things are going SOUTH . No agreement and No relief.
Class action is the only option. USCIS just wanted to test the waters and now they don't want to settle. Every thing else is just rumor mill. Every one who claimed to know the insider info was just taken for a ride. Welcome to beltway politics 101."
What's the point of starting a new thread to throw in your opinion?
Servers and all members are already very stressed.
"Things are going SOUTH . No agreement and No relief.
Class action is the only option. USCIS just wanted to test the waters and now they don't want to settle. Every thing else is just rumor mill. Every one who claimed to know the insider info was just taken for a ride. Welcome to beltway politics 101."
What's the point of starting a new thread to throw in your opinion?
Servers and all members are already very stressed.
more...
makeup Natalie Portman in metallic
jonty_11
01-22 12:52 PM
I am also in similar situation.
I have pending I-485 and used AC21 to switch to the new company but I am still in H1B status. However, my wife is using EAD and she need to travel using AP.
Can anyone suggest whether there will be any issue in travelling outside USA, if I (Primary applicant) is still in H1B status but used AC-21 and wife is using EAD (has to use AP)?
Thanks in advance.
BK
what does your lawyer say????
I have pending I-485 and used AC21 to switch to the new company but I am still in H1B status. However, my wife is using EAD and she need to travel using AP.
Can anyone suggest whether there will be any issue in travelling outside USA, if I (Primary applicant) is still in H1B status but used AC-21 and wife is using EAD (has to use AP)?
Thanks in advance.
BK
what does your lawyer say????
girlfriend Natalie Portman: The
immi_seeker
09-13 12:46 PM
EB2 and EB3 at one point were in the same boat. Now that EB2 is advancing and is way ahead of EB3, the EB3 applicants are upset and angry. Their anger is very much justified. However, their anger should not be directed towards EB2 applicants.
As I pointed out in another post, we are all players here and we are all playing by the rules. The system is not fair. Anger should be directed towards the system and not towards EB2s.
"hate the game, don't hate the playa....Chris Rock" is appropriate here.
Most of the EB2s, if not all, are supportive of reform and are supportive towards EB3 friends. The anger may lead to the disruption of this support.
We are all in this together. We all need to stay together.
Agree. Problem has been with some folks saying the spill over distribution should be changed. But nobody is sure whether it will help EB3I because on a vertical roll over scenario, the spill over will only help EB3 ROW as they have huge backlog too. So attitude seems to be, we are in this boat, so why not we make sure you guys will also be in same boat eventhough the change doesnt help us. And thats where the problem lies
As I pointed out in another post, we are all players here and we are all playing by the rules. The system is not fair. Anger should be directed towards the system and not towards EB2s.
"hate the game, don't hate the playa....Chris Rock" is appropriate here.
Most of the EB2s, if not all, are supportive of reform and are supportive towards EB3 friends. The anger may lead to the disruption of this support.
We are all in this together. We all need to stay together.
Agree. Problem has been with some folks saying the spill over distribution should be changed. But nobody is sure whether it will help EB3I because on a vertical roll over scenario, the spill over will only help EB3 ROW as they have huge backlog too. So attitude seems to be, we are in this boat, so why not we make sure you guys will also be in same boat eventhough the change doesnt help us. And thats where the problem lies
hairstyles natalie portman lanvin.
r2i2009
09-21 09:47 PM
Thanks...your replies were compassionate and philosophical in a way.
Let me rephrase it. With current Globalization and other means to come to US such as B1,L1 etc....why are we stuck to this phase for years.
See tonnes of people going back----are we chasing something we are not supposed to do?
Let me rephrase it. With current Globalization and other means to come to US such as B1,L1 etc....why are we stuck to this phase for years.
See tonnes of people going back----are we chasing something we are not supposed to do?
fullerene
08-13 11:14 AM
From my notice the processing date is meaningless at TSC because the dates are mostly the processing windows. For example, I140 was Jan 13 in July notice, which was 6 months behind. If you take a look on AP and EAD, they were just 3 months behind.
It turns out to me that processing date is the date that you are entitled to make a phone call to request your status. You may be lucky to have your EAD in 1 or 2 months. But if you do not have it in three months, you can make a call to request a reason they can not deny your request. But if your date is later than the processing date, they may turn down your request or ask you to wait.
That's it!
It turns out to me that processing date is the date that you are entitled to make a phone call to request your status. You may be lucky to have your EAD in 1 or 2 months. But if you do not have it in three months, you can make a call to request a reason they can not deny your request. But if your date is later than the processing date, they may turn down your request or ask you to wait.
That's it!
chanduv23
03-14 12:58 PM
Don't ignore Dubai. It is a boom town and will give red carpet welcome to your wife because she is a US trained doc. I know of a few Indian docs who were on J1 visa and never got waiver jobs went to work in Dubai instead because with US degree they can practise there without any major issues. Dubai is good for IT folks too with the internet city. You may want to google and find more about Dubai's requirements.
hopein07 - thanks a ton again
Thats news. We recently had a layover in Dubai when we flew emirates and Dubai seems to be an exciting place.
Any idea about Australia?
hopein07 - thanks a ton again
Thats news. We recently had a layover in Dubai when we flew emirates and Dubai seems to be an exciting place.
Any idea about Australia?
No comments:
Post a Comment