DirCls
07-15 08:05 AM
They are entitled fro thier opinior and so are we as immigrants.
We are doing a great job so far, but have to do better.
Long live IV Core and its members!
We are doing a great job so far, but have to do better.
Long live IV Core and its members!
wallpaper 2010 Nicki Minaj backside
Rohan99
10-29 12:21 PM
If a person on H4 applies for EAD, does it mean his/her H4 is no longer active. And now, he needs to carry AP while traveling?
Please help...
Please help...
ilovestirfries
09-27 08:07 PM
Wowww...There were 34 views without a single reply.. :confused:
There isn't anybody who concurs/disagrees with my situation? Its amazing how these discussion boards work...:mad:
There isn't anybody who concurs/disagrees with my situation? Its amazing how these discussion boards work...:mad:
2011 nicki minaj fat ooty pics.
GreenCardLegion
03-25 06:36 PM
My case details below:
EB3 INDIA
PD of Jul 2004.
I am still working for same GC sponsoring employer since last 5 years. I still perform the same job title/job duties as mentioned in labor.
My employer had mentioned a salary of 87,000$ in my labor.
My 485 was filed way back in Sep 2004.
My 140 was approved way back in Nov 2004.
I have had 2 FPs done and 1 RFE replied to about 2 years ago. RFE was for EVL & TB Skin test.
2004 W2 – shows 74,000$/yr (Less than the salary mentioned in approved labor which is 87,000$)
2005 W2 – shows 57,000$/yr
2006 W2 – shows 50,000$/yr
2007 W2 – shows 58,000$/yr
2008 W2 – shows 67,000$/yr
Never changed employers nor job titles.
My concerns and questions below:
Q1) Will my 485 approval be affected due to the W2’s as mentioned above showing less way less salary than mentioned in the labor. I still work for same employer with same job duties/title as mentioned in labor.
Q2) Am I safe because GC is intended for future job offer? If there is any issue with me getting less salary all these years than my labor petition then can my employer say the 87,000$/yr salary is after 485 approval? Will this suffice? Or am I in jeopardy here?
Q3) With my EB3-India Jul 2004 PD how much more long do you think I need to wait to see a 485 approval? My FBI name checks are cleared.
Q4) With June 2004 PD/EB3 India do you advise me at this stage after 5 years to switch to CP?
Q5) Would you advise me to start a brand new EB2 India labor and 140 considering my retrogressed eb3 India category and dates?
Q6) I have been on bench for about 3 times (periods of 2 to 3 months) in the last several years witout pay. But I have always had EAD but never used EAD as I had H1B from same GC sponsoring employer. But I always got paid every year more than the prevailing LCA wage for my geographical location? Will this affect my GC?
Thanks.
EB3 INDIA
PD of Jul 2004.
I am still working for same GC sponsoring employer since last 5 years. I still perform the same job title/job duties as mentioned in labor.
My employer had mentioned a salary of 87,000$ in my labor.
My 485 was filed way back in Sep 2004.
My 140 was approved way back in Nov 2004.
I have had 2 FPs done and 1 RFE replied to about 2 years ago. RFE was for EVL & TB Skin test.
2004 W2 – shows 74,000$/yr (Less than the salary mentioned in approved labor which is 87,000$)
2005 W2 – shows 57,000$/yr
2006 W2 – shows 50,000$/yr
2007 W2 – shows 58,000$/yr
2008 W2 – shows 67,000$/yr
Never changed employers nor job titles.
My concerns and questions below:
Q1) Will my 485 approval be affected due to the W2’s as mentioned above showing less way less salary than mentioned in the labor. I still work for same employer with same job duties/title as mentioned in labor.
Q2) Am I safe because GC is intended for future job offer? If there is any issue with me getting less salary all these years than my labor petition then can my employer say the 87,000$/yr salary is after 485 approval? Will this suffice? Or am I in jeopardy here?
Q3) With my EB3-India Jul 2004 PD how much more long do you think I need to wait to see a 485 approval? My FBI name checks are cleared.
Q4) With June 2004 PD/EB3 India do you advise me at this stage after 5 years to switch to CP?
Q5) Would you advise me to start a brand new EB2 India labor and 140 considering my retrogressed eb3 India category and dates?
Q6) I have been on bench for about 3 times (periods of 2 to 3 months) in the last several years witout pay. But I have always had EAD but never used EAD as I had H1B from same GC sponsoring employer. But I always got paid every year more than the prevailing LCA wage for my geographical location? Will this affect my GC?
Thanks.
more...
vinabath
03-24 03:12 PM
Dear VB,
I have noticed that you are creating new threads just for the heck of it. If you really have an issue that warrants a separate thread and discussion, please go ahead and do it. Please do not abuse the forum. Use your discretion wisely and stop creating threads that depict frustration.
Take it easy and cheer up brother!!
I have noticed that you are creating new threads just for the heck of it. If you really have an issue that warrants a separate thread and discussion, please go ahead and do it. Please do not abuse the forum. Use your discretion wisely and stop creating threads that depict frustration.
Take it easy and cheer up brother!!
Pagal
10-17 10:19 PM
Hello,
I underwent two interviews at USCIS offices... be prepared with basic documents, but don't carry a suitcase full of documents and copies etc. The officer wants to ask you questions, not to your documents (otherwise, you would receive a request for documents only). Many people take attorneys with them (generally not necessary, if your case is clean).
You can appear together for the interview. Be relaxed and answer only the questions asked (do not keep talking at length) to you. Let your wife answer any questions posed to her by herself. In case there are any documents that you do not have with you, the officer will give you enough time (typically two weeks) to come back and resubmit the documents.
Good luck!
I underwent two interviews at USCIS offices... be prepared with basic documents, but don't carry a suitcase full of documents and copies etc. The officer wants to ask you questions, not to your documents (otherwise, you would receive a request for documents only). Many people take attorneys with them (generally not necessary, if your case is clean).
You can appear together for the interview. Be relaxed and answer only the questions asked (do not keep talking at length) to you. Let your wife answer any questions posed to her by herself. In case there are any documents that you do not have with you, the officer will give you enough time (typically two weeks) to come back and resubmit the documents.
Good luck!
more...
willwin
06-09 01:20 PM
Even though your pd is current, It is quite possible that they have not assigned a visa number yet to your case. So they are probably assigning by order of PD's
Example: Sept 2003, before Oct 2003,....So on..so they are assigning earlier PDs Visa numbers first.
Second possibility is that there could be too many eligible before your date or exactly your date and in which case they will go with RD..which in your case is July 2nd, 2007. There could be people with 485 RD's in 2005 when the dates were current.
This is pure guess work and speculation, I really do not know how they do this. But if they really have enough visas for EB2, yours will still be current next month.
-------------------------------------------
India EB3- PD: June 2003
Contributed $480 + Monthly Recurring contributor.
One of my friend with PD Jul 2001 EB3 India is still waiting for his GC. His name check was cleared 4-5 months back and not sure what he was waiting for.....
Example: Sept 2003, before Oct 2003,....So on..so they are assigning earlier PDs Visa numbers first.
Second possibility is that there could be too many eligible before your date or exactly your date and in which case they will go with RD..which in your case is July 2nd, 2007. There could be people with 485 RD's in 2005 when the dates were current.
This is pure guess work and speculation, I really do not know how they do this. But if they really have enough visas for EB2, yours will still be current next month.
-------------------------------------------
India EB3- PD: June 2003
Contributed $480 + Monthly Recurring contributor.
One of my friend with PD Jul 2001 EB3 India is still waiting for his GC. His name check was cleared 4-5 months back and not sure what he was waiting for.....
2010 nicki minaj lap dance Nicki
Berkeleybee
03-28 11:03 AM
Berkleybee,
We know IV has set policies about postings, but i have to agree with Jnayar here. It is really a waste of time and counterproductive for individuals to be on 2-3 different forums. Especially when the creme-de-la-creme is on this one.
I mean at max, some people will read the issues and not post a reply, but if someone DOES have an answer, it would make life easier on the person that posted the question. From my personal experience, i used to visit the ImmigrationPortal religiously during the past year. Now i have not once stepped onto that forum, coz most of my needs regarding information are met here. We have a strong, vast and diverse community on here and we can help each other out, being that most Immigration Lawyers are not very prompt in answering our questions. You guys have been doing a great job moderating this forum, but we need to have a seperate category for these extra issues.
Adding another forum should not be too big of an issue in my opinion, though the Admin could shed some light on this.
All people have to do is monitor two forums. That is exactly what I do. When my application was sent off to the Texas Service Center from the CSC, I posted on Immig Portal not here.
We do not want IV to become just another forum. We want to keep our activism at the forefront. And we want the "creme de la" as you call them to focus on the work at hand not answering every question that comes along. If you are familiar with Immig Portal you know that the same question is asked repeatedly, misinformation is spread and moderators have enough to do without getting involved in all that. Not to mention frayed nerves, name calling and the all the rest of it. As it is it is hard to keep people on topic in any given thread. I am not sure you know about the behind the scenes work needed to keep this forum accurate, civil and on point.
Please understand that we think of Immig Portal as a complementary forum. We were born there, and we think it is the appropriate forum to discuss processing issues.
And as for extra time, think of all the extra time IV volunteers are spending just getting basic IV work done. Spend the extra 5 mins to go to Immig Portal.
warm regards,
Berkeleybee
We know IV has set policies about postings, but i have to agree with Jnayar here. It is really a waste of time and counterproductive for individuals to be on 2-3 different forums. Especially when the creme-de-la-creme is on this one.
I mean at max, some people will read the issues and not post a reply, but if someone DOES have an answer, it would make life easier on the person that posted the question. From my personal experience, i used to visit the ImmigrationPortal religiously during the past year. Now i have not once stepped onto that forum, coz most of my needs regarding information are met here. We have a strong, vast and diverse community on here and we can help each other out, being that most Immigration Lawyers are not very prompt in answering our questions. You guys have been doing a great job moderating this forum, but we need to have a seperate category for these extra issues.
Adding another forum should not be too big of an issue in my opinion, though the Admin could shed some light on this.
All people have to do is monitor two forums. That is exactly what I do. When my application was sent off to the Texas Service Center from the CSC, I posted on Immig Portal not here.
We do not want IV to become just another forum. We want to keep our activism at the forefront. And we want the "creme de la" as you call them to focus on the work at hand not answering every question that comes along. If you are familiar with Immig Portal you know that the same question is asked repeatedly, misinformation is spread and moderators have enough to do without getting involved in all that. Not to mention frayed nerves, name calling and the all the rest of it. As it is it is hard to keep people on topic in any given thread. I am not sure you know about the behind the scenes work needed to keep this forum accurate, civil and on point.
Please understand that we think of Immig Portal as a complementary forum. We were born there, and we think it is the appropriate forum to discuss processing issues.
And as for extra time, think of all the extra time IV volunteers are spending just getting basic IV work done. Spend the extra 5 mins to go to Immig Portal.
warm regards,
Berkeleybee
more...
unit
09-16 03:57 PM
I am also in a similar situation, and have the same question.
Any one with answers?
Any one with answers?
hair nicki minaj booty before
pcs
07-31 02:05 PM
Let us all work to find solution to this issue & keep sharing info
more...
ubetman
08-05 08:50 AM
guyz,
Did I make sense in my previous post...suggestions plz...thanks...
Did I make sense in my previous post...suggestions plz...thanks...
hot nicki minaj booty before
reddymjm
04-17 03:48 PM
As per today I have an H1b visa, I have my I140 approved, and my 6th year ends on April 25, 2008. My actual employer have gave me a contract that says that upon I become a permanent resident i will have to work for him for 5 years, then if I quit after the 5th year or before I will not able to work on the same industry on all the united states, also mention what my salary would be but there is no mention of increase. Since I will have to wait until my residence at least 3 more years, that means that I will have to work on these conditions for 8 or 9 years.!!!!
I do not know what to do , this is almost illegal (I think !), do I have time to change employer and do again my visa, and I140, so I don't lost status ??
If you have a copy of ur LC and I140 you are good to go. Any one can get a 3 year extension on an approved I140. If the rule comes in that you should use ur labor within 45 days of approval. There is nothing ur employer can do to you. If you do not have a copy try getting a copy of your labor and I140.
I do not know what to do , this is almost illegal (I think !), do I have time to change employer and do again my visa, and I140, so I don't lost status ??
If you have a copy of ur LC and I140 you are good to go. Any one can get a 3 year extension on an approved I140. If the rule comes in that you should use ur labor within 45 days of approval. There is nothing ur employer can do to you. If you do not have a copy try getting a copy of your labor and I140.
more...
house nicki minaj booty before and
ssa
11-14 01:51 AM
There is a lot of confusion on this topic - not just on the forums but even among practicing immigration lawyers. Bottom line is there is no clear cut wording in any USCIS rule or memo regarding this particular situation so it's open to interpretation. If your attorney is conservative in interpretation s/he will say use of EAD for any job would void H1B. Others say as long as you do not use EAD for the primary Job for which you have the approved H1B its okay to use EAD for other jobs. My own lawyer is in the later camp - the camp which believes use of EAD for secondary jobs does not constitute violation of H1B terms as long as you continue to work for the H1B sponsoring employer for full time. He is immigration attorney for a very big and prominent high tech company.
Pick one lawyer who you are comfortable with and believe in and do as s/he says. Bad news is anything short of USCIS clarification/memo on this will not end this debate conclusively.
Pick one lawyer who you are comfortable with and believe in and do as s/he says. Bad news is anything short of USCIS clarification/memo on this will not end this debate conclusively.
tattoo Nicki Minaj Booty Pictures
gc_check
07-16 10:29 AM
As core team migth be knowing the solution, Can you please provide us some information whether we should go ahead and file today.
I don't think, anyone other than the USCIS/DOS will know the solution or whatever, at this time, untill the information is published to public. Applying AOS or not should be decided by you and your attorney. Not the core, Guess if the core has the updates that you are looking they might have updated in the home page :) by now...
Well I'm also waiitng to see what would be the updates from USCIS, as my 485 papers are not yet submitted but ready to go and the attorney would make the decision based on how this truns out to be... WSJ article is the one that is updates in various website/blog. Have to wait and see...
I don't think, anyone other than the USCIS/DOS will know the solution or whatever, at this time, untill the information is published to public. Applying AOS or not should be decided by you and your attorney. Not the core, Guess if the core has the updates that you are looking they might have updated in the home page :) by now...
Well I'm also waiitng to see what would be the updates from USCIS, as my 485 papers are not yet submitted but ready to go and the attorney would make the decision based on how this truns out to be... WSJ article is the one that is updates in various website/blog. Have to wait and see...
more...
pictures nicki minaj booty before
chanduv23
11-14 08:16 PM
This is the time to channelize all your frustration into positive energy. Yes, we can collective work towards ending retrogression.
Join your State Chapter today
Follow the link
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72&Itemid=52
Come on folks, this is time for action.
Start working towards IVs goals and you will be glad that you are doing it.
Join your State Chapter today
Follow the link
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72&Itemid=52
Come on folks, this is time for action.
Start working towards IVs goals and you will be glad that you are doing it.
dresses nicki minaj booty before and
gultie2k
07-07 04:14 PM
Usual, IT sector with a Desi consulting company!
more...
makeup Photos nicki minaj booty
vicky007
05-10 12:16 PM
Sorry, the link is not working anymore.
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
girlfriend Nicki Minaj Lap Dance Lil
n_2006
02-23 12:35 PM
Why people ask dumb questions. For me most of these questions are dumb and answers are obvious.
Right. I am not going to resign in haste. But I am confident I can find my current salary in 2-3 months. Question is , should I go for it or accept the paycut and stick it out as long as I can?
Right. I am not going to resign in haste. But I am confident I can find my current salary in 2-3 months. Question is , should I go for it or accept the paycut and stick it out as long as I can?
hairstyles After the jump Peep Nicki on
Legal
07-12 02:22 PM
Guys!
Is there someone in NY to call on Mrs. Clinton and apprise her of this mess of USCIS.If not directly may be get in touch with powerful indian community leaders who can talk to her about this matter.At least she can write a letter similar to Lofgren...
Keep up the spirits MAN !!
Helping us is not good election strategy. Bringing amendments in favor of family immigration was good lection strategy. Talking against outsourcing is good election strategy.
Is there someone in NY to call on Mrs. Clinton and apprise her of this mess of USCIS.If not directly may be get in touch with powerful indian community leaders who can talk to her about this matter.At least she can write a letter similar to Lofgren...
Keep up the spirits MAN !!
Helping us is not good election strategy. Bringing amendments in favor of family immigration was good lection strategy. Talking against outsourcing is good election strategy.
ajay
09-17 08:31 AM
I also was in the same situation when I came back from India and used AP.
tnite
06-18 11:59 AM
Hi Guys:
Had some questions with regards to my actual 485 form.
situation:
2000-2003 -F1 (never out of status/ visa stamped in 2000 in bombay)
2003-2004 - OPT
2004-2007 - 1st H1 (never got it stamped)
2007-2010 - 2nd H1 (stamped last month in canada)
PART 3
Place of Last Entry Into the United States (City/State)
What should i put over here? I did not get an arrival stamp when i came back from canada last month after stamping. all the immigration officer did was tear the bottom portion of the h1b approval and staple it to the passport. he said that was my I-94
Consult a lawyer.
I personally think putting your canadian vist as the last place of entry might not show up in records as no stamping took place and also the I94 part which is taken by the customs and sent to INS in kentucky did not happen in your case. So when USCIS checks u'r I94, all they will see is the date in 2000 when you came to US.
In your case since you jumped from F1 to H1B via OPT you might not have had any gaps in chaging status and USCIS did not ask you to leave the country for gettting the H1B stamped(Change of status was approved )
This situation of yours hinges on technicality and better talk to a lawyer.
Had some questions with regards to my actual 485 form.
situation:
2000-2003 -F1 (never out of status/ visa stamped in 2000 in bombay)
2003-2004 - OPT
2004-2007 - 1st H1 (never got it stamped)
2007-2010 - 2nd H1 (stamped last month in canada)
PART 3
Place of Last Entry Into the United States (City/State)
What should i put over here? I did not get an arrival stamp when i came back from canada last month after stamping. all the immigration officer did was tear the bottom portion of the h1b approval and staple it to the passport. he said that was my I-94
Consult a lawyer.
I personally think putting your canadian vist as the last place of entry might not show up in records as no stamping took place and also the I94 part which is taken by the customs and sent to INS in kentucky did not happen in your case. So when USCIS checks u'r I94, all they will see is the date in 2000 when you came to US.
In your case since you jumped from F1 to H1B via OPT you might not have had any gaps in chaging status and USCIS did not ask you to leave the country for gettting the H1B stamped(Change of status was approved )
This situation of yours hinges on technicality and better talk to a lawyer.
No comments:
Post a Comment