srikondoji
04-26 03:09 PM
How do i do it?
Give me the paypal email id to send money to.
Thanks
sri
Give me the paypal email id to send money to.
Thanks
sri
wallpaper gifs animados de amor,
annsheila79
04-19 09:48 AM
congratulations
hoping12
02-21 12:30 PM
Hello All,
I am also in the similar suituation.
Left company A and joined company B(H1B transfer approved), Company B applied for I140 using labor substitute.
But when i am checking my previous company A's H1b status it is showing 'The case is reopened'.
I am very much worried about the same.
Some suggestions will be very much helpful.
I am also in the similar suituation.
Left company A and joined company B(H1B transfer approved), Company B applied for I140 using labor substitute.
But when i am checking my previous company A's H1b status it is showing 'The case is reopened'.
I am very much worried about the same.
Some suggestions will be very much helpful.
2011 gifs animados de amor,
shankar_thanu
07-17 02:15 PM
I understand DREAM act is not related to EB issues. What I meant was, just like how DREAM act is being added to an unrelated bill, we should work on adding things like 'unlimited STEM visas' and 'recapture unused numbers' to other bills and get them passed.
IV core will need lot of support to do accomplish this, hope at least some of the folks who got into IV because of the july fiasco contribute funds.
IV core will need lot of support to do accomplish this, hope at least some of the folks who got into IV because of the july fiasco contribute funds.
more...
sparuthi
09-17 01:06 PM
They are all now driving together to the Panda Express which 2.3 miles away. The Lady from California has opted for Egg Rolls, Veg.Fried Rice and Orange Chicken. She also wants big drink.
Instead of having chinese,, they can have the indian food, with kabobs, tandorri chicken and naan.. that might wet their appetite for HR5882.. cheers
Instead of having chinese,, they can have the indian food, with kabobs, tandorri chicken and naan.. that might wet their appetite for HR5882.. cheers
gvenkat
05-14 04:07 PM
Well ... I could partially agree to your rant. While I understand your point of view it is not justified on your part to generalize all posters into one category. You should have been more specific about what kind of posts (and even posters if you wish) frustrate you.
In my view your words "Get a life" certainly applies to the following set of people (in that particular order):
Those who say they are awaiting their GC to plan their lives (get married, have kids, buy a house etc.) I am married with a kid and bought a house and all I have is a I-140 approval (Not applied for I-485 yet). So what happens if I loose my job? I will make an honest effort to find one and if I fail I'll sell my house and go back to India. I am prepared both mentally and somewhat financially too. As much as I want to live in the USA it is common sense that I always have a solid back up plan to go back if need be.
Those who come here whining about their I-485 getting rejected and don't have a back up plan. Seriously, how many times must you get jacked before you realize that USCIS is not dependable? How the heck can one plan their life around it? One must realize that GC is just a small part of your life and not your life itself. Get your priorities straight.
Those who say that laws are racist. Hilarious! BTW racism is not one way (like the Whites out here want you to think) so beware of what you say unless you don't mind getting sued.
Those who build up their hopes with predictions on the next visa bulletin and go emotionally crazy when the hopes crash with the release of that bulletin. I mean c'mon ... flower campaigns? hunger strikes? Are you that naive to think it worked the first time? This ain't a factory in India and we aren't a group of union workers.
The above form a very small group of people on this website and that is where the problem lies with your post. You are basically stereotyping all of us into a category formed by a small group of people.
Anyway, good to know of your Canadian PR success ... good luck!
To those who fall in the above 4 categories take the time to realize that its all in your head. Be strong and prepared mentally. You've done all you can in an honest way. If things don't work out then so be it. Sometime in the future you will realize that it was all for your own good. Move on in style to your next adventure ... it's waiting for you.
A very sensible post. You dont need to have ur life around the GC and Priority dates. You need to do what u want to as much as within ur limits.. But one thing is USCIS can be staright forward and say EB-I wont move for such and such time and people can still plan better... :)
In my view your words "Get a life" certainly applies to the following set of people (in that particular order):
Those who say they are awaiting their GC to plan their lives (get married, have kids, buy a house etc.) I am married with a kid and bought a house and all I have is a I-140 approval (Not applied for I-485 yet). So what happens if I loose my job? I will make an honest effort to find one and if I fail I'll sell my house and go back to India. I am prepared both mentally and somewhat financially too. As much as I want to live in the USA it is common sense that I always have a solid back up plan to go back if need be.
Those who come here whining about their I-485 getting rejected and don't have a back up plan. Seriously, how many times must you get jacked before you realize that USCIS is not dependable? How the heck can one plan their life around it? One must realize that GC is just a small part of your life and not your life itself. Get your priorities straight.
Those who say that laws are racist. Hilarious! BTW racism is not one way (like the Whites out here want you to think) so beware of what you say unless you don't mind getting sued.
Those who build up their hopes with predictions on the next visa bulletin and go emotionally crazy when the hopes crash with the release of that bulletin. I mean c'mon ... flower campaigns? hunger strikes? Are you that naive to think it worked the first time? This ain't a factory in India and we aren't a group of union workers.
The above form a very small group of people on this website and that is where the problem lies with your post. You are basically stereotyping all of us into a category formed by a small group of people.
Anyway, good to know of your Canadian PR success ... good luck!
To those who fall in the above 4 categories take the time to realize that its all in your head. Be strong and prepared mentally. You've done all you can in an honest way. If things don't work out then so be it. Sometime in the future you will realize that it was all for your own good. Move on in style to your next adventure ... it's waiting for you.
A very sensible post. You dont need to have ur life around the GC and Priority dates. You need to do what u want to as much as within ur limits.. But one thing is USCIS can be staright forward and say EB-I wont move for such and such time and people can still plan better... :)
more...
sobers
02-22 12:31 PM
Whether it is logical or not, whether we like it or not, the issues of illegal and legal immigration are intrinsically tied up (to the disadvantage of skilled workers, of course:-()
Anyhow, this appeared in today's Wall Street Journal...it may forbode a taste of things to come..or not come..this one focusses on the DREAM Act which is geared to provide in-state tuition to illegal immigrants..
---------------
Should Illegal Immigrants Get Tuition Help?
States' Varying Stances on College-Education Benefit Illustrate Congress's Overhaul Task
By JUNE KRONHOLZ
February 22, 2006; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- An emotional state-level dispute over college tuition shows how tough it will be for Congress to overhaul immigration laws and extend citizenship benefits to the country's estimated 11 million illegal immigrants.
Four years ago, California passed a law granting in-state tuition to students who were in the U.S. illegally but had graduated from a California high school. Eight other states followed, allowing illegal immigrants to attend public colleges for in-state student fees -- usually less than half what out-of-state students pay.
DiAnna Schimek, a Democrat who heads the Nebraska Senate's education committee, says she has pushed for an in-state tuition bill for illegal immigrants as a matter of compassion and economic calculation. "These children didn't bring themselves" but were brought by their parents, she says. "It's only a good investment on our part to make certain they are productive citizens."
But attitudes have been hardening as an estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants flood in yearly. "That's an alarm to the people here ... it's a drain on the economy," says Rep. Glenn Donnelson, a Utah Republican who heads an education committee in his state.
So while some legislators want to extend tuition benefits to illegal immigrants in their states, others are calling for laws to deny the benefit -- or take it back.
Lawmakers in Utah, Kansas and New Mexico -- which passed in-state tuition benefits only two or three years ago -- now are waging uphill fights to repeal them. Massachusetts legislators last month rejected a bill to offer in-state tuition benefits to illegal immigrants.
Six states are considering measures that would deny in-state tuition, tuition waivers or state scholarships to illegal immigrants. In New York, which offers in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, and Virginia, which recently passed a law offering benefits to some, bills have been introduced to bar illegal immigrants from attending public colleges.
Meanwhile, lawsuits challenging in-state tuition for illegal immigrants have been filed in California and in Kansas. "There's something wrong with giving a benefit to an illegal that we don't even give to citizens of other states," says state Rep. Becky Hutchins, a Kansas Republican leading a repeal effort there.
The tuition laws generally require illegal immigrants to have attended a local high school for three years, to have graduated or earned a high-school equivalency and to sign an affidavit promising to legalize their immigration status as soon as they are eligible.
Promoters expect few students to actually take up the benefit. Dropout rates are high and academic scores generally are low among Hispanics, who account for the majority of illegal aliens. And even in-state tuition, which averages about $5,500 this year, may be out of reach for children whose parents typically hold minimum-wage jobs.
Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri law professor who brought a federal suit against the Kansas program, says 221 illegal immigrants are enrolled in Kansas public colleges this year, and that even when the benefit becomes widely known, the number probably wouldn't exceed 2,700.
Even so, in-state tuition laws have become flashpoint among some voters who feel they haven't any other way to protest illegal immigration. Federal laws allow illegal immigrants to use emergency medical services, and a 1982 Supreme Court decision entitles their children to public education through high school.
Rod Adair, a New Mexico state senator who introduced unsuccessful legislation to repeal his state's immigrant-tuition benefit, says he was acting "in response to my constituents. They're frustrated."
Prof. Kobach's suit contends Kansas's in-state tuition benefit violates a federal law that prohibits states from giving any benefit to an illegal alien that they don't also extend to all U.S. citizens.
Among his plaintiffs, Heidi Hydeman, an Iowa native, says she was charged out-of-state tuition by the University of Kansas, though she lived in Kansas for six years and paid Kansas income tax for three years while attending the school. "I thought it was unfair," says Ms. Hydeman.
Mr. Donnelson, the Utah legislator, says Utah would face a $34 million bill if a similar suit were filed there, and current out-of-state students were refunded the difference between in-state tuition and the nonresident tuition they pay.
But legislators' doubts go beyond that. Although illegal immigrants who get the tuition benefit pledge to legalize their status, there is almost no way they can do that under current laws. And even with a college degree, there is almost no way for illegal immigrants to legally get a job.
For years, congressional supporters have promoted a measure, called the Dream Act, that would clear up those problems. States would be allowed to offer in-state tuition to illegal-immigrant students who, in turn, could become citizens.
In 2003, almost half the Senate cosponsored the Dream Act. But the Dream Act's prospects have faded, and this year its pivotal supporter, Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, withdrew as a sponsor. "Realistically, the Dream Act will not pass" and should be included in an overhaul of immigration laws, he said.
But the tensions fueling opposition to in-state tuition laws are the same ones making it hard for Congress to pass immigration overhaul. A coalition of pro-business Republicans, Democrats, immigrant-rights groups and labor unions wants new federal laws that would let illegal immigrants eventually become citizens.
They are being stymied, however, by social conservatives, who worry about being culturally overwhelmed by immigrants, and by Republican national-security hawks, who are demanding that Washington cut off illegal immigration first. The tension prevented the U.S. House from taking up immigration overhaul last year, and is complicating the Senate's efforts to pass it this year.
Write to June Kronholz at june.kronholz@wsj.com
Anyhow, this appeared in today's Wall Street Journal...it may forbode a taste of things to come..or not come..this one focusses on the DREAM Act which is geared to provide in-state tuition to illegal immigrants..
---------------
Should Illegal Immigrants Get Tuition Help?
States' Varying Stances on College-Education Benefit Illustrate Congress's Overhaul Task
By JUNE KRONHOLZ
February 22, 2006; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- An emotional state-level dispute over college tuition shows how tough it will be for Congress to overhaul immigration laws and extend citizenship benefits to the country's estimated 11 million illegal immigrants.
Four years ago, California passed a law granting in-state tuition to students who were in the U.S. illegally but had graduated from a California high school. Eight other states followed, allowing illegal immigrants to attend public colleges for in-state student fees -- usually less than half what out-of-state students pay.
DiAnna Schimek, a Democrat who heads the Nebraska Senate's education committee, says she has pushed for an in-state tuition bill for illegal immigrants as a matter of compassion and economic calculation. "These children didn't bring themselves" but were brought by their parents, she says. "It's only a good investment on our part to make certain they are productive citizens."
But attitudes have been hardening as an estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants flood in yearly. "That's an alarm to the people here ... it's a drain on the economy," says Rep. Glenn Donnelson, a Utah Republican who heads an education committee in his state.
So while some legislators want to extend tuition benefits to illegal immigrants in their states, others are calling for laws to deny the benefit -- or take it back.
Lawmakers in Utah, Kansas and New Mexico -- which passed in-state tuition benefits only two or three years ago -- now are waging uphill fights to repeal them. Massachusetts legislators last month rejected a bill to offer in-state tuition benefits to illegal immigrants.
Six states are considering measures that would deny in-state tuition, tuition waivers or state scholarships to illegal immigrants. In New York, which offers in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, and Virginia, which recently passed a law offering benefits to some, bills have been introduced to bar illegal immigrants from attending public colleges.
Meanwhile, lawsuits challenging in-state tuition for illegal immigrants have been filed in California and in Kansas. "There's something wrong with giving a benefit to an illegal that we don't even give to citizens of other states," says state Rep. Becky Hutchins, a Kansas Republican leading a repeal effort there.
The tuition laws generally require illegal immigrants to have attended a local high school for three years, to have graduated or earned a high-school equivalency and to sign an affidavit promising to legalize their immigration status as soon as they are eligible.
Promoters expect few students to actually take up the benefit. Dropout rates are high and academic scores generally are low among Hispanics, who account for the majority of illegal aliens. And even in-state tuition, which averages about $5,500 this year, may be out of reach for children whose parents typically hold minimum-wage jobs.
Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri law professor who brought a federal suit against the Kansas program, says 221 illegal immigrants are enrolled in Kansas public colleges this year, and that even when the benefit becomes widely known, the number probably wouldn't exceed 2,700.
Even so, in-state tuition laws have become flashpoint among some voters who feel they haven't any other way to protest illegal immigration. Federal laws allow illegal immigrants to use emergency medical services, and a 1982 Supreme Court decision entitles their children to public education through high school.
Rod Adair, a New Mexico state senator who introduced unsuccessful legislation to repeal his state's immigrant-tuition benefit, says he was acting "in response to my constituents. They're frustrated."
Prof. Kobach's suit contends Kansas's in-state tuition benefit violates a federal law that prohibits states from giving any benefit to an illegal alien that they don't also extend to all U.S. citizens.
Among his plaintiffs, Heidi Hydeman, an Iowa native, says she was charged out-of-state tuition by the University of Kansas, though she lived in Kansas for six years and paid Kansas income tax for three years while attending the school. "I thought it was unfair," says Ms. Hydeman.
Mr. Donnelson, the Utah legislator, says Utah would face a $34 million bill if a similar suit were filed there, and current out-of-state students were refunded the difference between in-state tuition and the nonresident tuition they pay.
But legislators' doubts go beyond that. Although illegal immigrants who get the tuition benefit pledge to legalize their status, there is almost no way they can do that under current laws. And even with a college degree, there is almost no way for illegal immigrants to legally get a job.
For years, congressional supporters have promoted a measure, called the Dream Act, that would clear up those problems. States would be allowed to offer in-state tuition to illegal-immigrant students who, in turn, could become citizens.
In 2003, almost half the Senate cosponsored the Dream Act. But the Dream Act's prospects have faded, and this year its pivotal supporter, Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, withdrew as a sponsor. "Realistically, the Dream Act will not pass" and should be included in an overhaul of immigration laws, he said.
But the tensions fueling opposition to in-state tuition laws are the same ones making it hard for Congress to pass immigration overhaul. A coalition of pro-business Republicans, Democrats, immigrant-rights groups and labor unions wants new federal laws that would let illegal immigrants eventually become citizens.
They are being stymied, however, by social conservatives, who worry about being culturally overwhelmed by immigrants, and by Republican national-security hawks, who are demanding that Washington cut off illegal immigration first. The tension prevented the U.S. House from taking up immigration overhaul last year, and is complicating the Senate's efforts to pass it this year.
Write to June Kronholz at june.kronholz@wsj.com
2010 dresses animados de amor
gc28262
01-28 04:01 PM
Memos are for interpretation of laws by USCIS. Any memo is advisory in nature and does not have force of law. These memos, unless challenged and turned downed by court or withdrawn, are valid.
Your saying that memo is illegal does not mean anything more than your personal opinion.
H-1B petitions have denied in past based on employer-employee relationship, unable to specify duties at end client, and self employment cases. If you are interested, let me know, I will put links here.
PS: This does not mean that I personally agree/disagree with the memo. This is just to show the legal aspect of it.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
I know what you are referring to. USCIS has tried to raise this issue in the past in 2 instances. Once in 1990s and another in 2006 timeframe. In both cases lawyers were able to force USCIS to back down. Lot of consulting company applications have been approved since then.
The only difference this time is, it has come in the form of a memo. It is in fact a blessing in disguise. AILA has some reference document against which they can fight in court and get it overturned permanently.
Please refer this link
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_repatt.html
Legacy INS (now USCIS) raised many similar issues, in the early- to mid-1990s, regarding the length and nature of the projects in the U.S., timetable of assignments, and the H1B employer’s ability to pay the required prevailing wage. Senior Legacy INS officials from headquarters in Washington DC addressed the concerns of those examiners by pointing out that the law does not permit them to investigate a U.S. employer’s ability to hire H1B employees. The USCIS is bound by memos and policy guidance of the Legacy INS. After that memo, Legacy INS stopped issuing lengthy RFEs on these matters.
The law does not require any such letters by end-user clients for the issuance of the H1B visas to the visa applicants.
Your saying that memo is illegal does not mean anything more than your personal opinion.
H-1B petitions have denied in past based on employer-employee relationship, unable to specify duties at end client, and self employment cases. If you are interested, let me know, I will put links here.
PS: This does not mean that I personally agree/disagree with the memo. This is just to show the legal aspect of it.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
I know what you are referring to. USCIS has tried to raise this issue in the past in 2 instances. Once in 1990s and another in 2006 timeframe. In both cases lawyers were able to force USCIS to back down. Lot of consulting company applications have been approved since then.
The only difference this time is, it has come in the form of a memo. It is in fact a blessing in disguise. AILA has some reference document against which they can fight in court and get it overturned permanently.
Please refer this link
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_repatt.html
Legacy INS (now USCIS) raised many similar issues, in the early- to mid-1990s, regarding the length and nature of the projects in the U.S., timetable of assignments, and the H1B employer’s ability to pay the required prevailing wage. Senior Legacy INS officials from headquarters in Washington DC addressed the concerns of those examiners by pointing out that the law does not permit them to investigate a U.S. employer’s ability to hire H1B employees. The USCIS is bound by memos and policy guidance of the Legacy INS. After that memo, Legacy INS stopped issuing lengthy RFEs on these matters.
The law does not require any such letters by end-user clients for the issuance of the H1B visas to the visa applicants.
more...
catopa
06-12 04:44 PM
It�s really a sad state for us, first the lawyer�s then the BEC delayed the cases, then the july fiasco.
With a PD of 11/01 I am not sure porting to EB2 will be worth it specially with premium I-140 gone and the costs associated, ????? :(
With a PD of 11/01 I am not sure porting to EB2 will be worth it specially with premium I-140 gone and the costs associated, ????? :(
hair animados de AMISTAD, AMOR
msumanta
06-21 04:16 PM
Hi, friends,
I need help from you guys I am getting married on 20th july and then coming back on 3rd august, so can I just apply for myself on 1stjuly and then add her after we come back . Is this possible.. what say experts?
Thanks in advance ,
I need help from you guys I am getting married on 20th july and then coming back on 3rd august, so can I just apply for myself on 1stjuly and then add her after we come back . Is this possible.. what say experts?
Thanks in advance ,
more...
Dalai Lama
02-01 12:30 PM
All Indian owned desi companies are cheaters.
hot corazones animados de amor
deba
06-11 09:32 AM
First of all, this is a civil lawsuit not criminal. So, don't panic. It will most likely have no effect on your GC processing. Second fleeing to India is not an option. You could be in greater trouble as some have pointed out. Third, the amount seems too large for an usual accident case. What exactly are they demanding the money for? Bodily injury, disability etc.? These cases take a while to sort out in court. Talk to a competent lawyer immediately about your next course of legal action.
On a second note, a friend of mine was also involved in this type of a case during his GC processing. The amount involved wasn't this large tho. Eventually they settled out of court and had no effect on his GC.
On a second note, a friend of mine was also involved in this type of a case during his GC processing. The amount involved wasn't this large tho. Eventually they settled out of court and had no effect on his GC.
more...
house animados, dibujos de amor,
inspectorfox
10-10 04:57 PM
Effect of Travel While in H1B / L-1 Status and Pending I-485
There are questions commonly on the minds of many Murthy Law Firm clients, as well as the greater immigrant community, that involve the effect of reentry into the U.S. on those who hold H1B or L-1 status as well as having approved Advance Parole (AP) based upon pending applications to adjust status (I-485). The law pertaining to this situation is not clear and the result is confusion. Thus, many with both H1B (or L-1) status and AP find themselves faced with the difficult decision of how to reenter the U.S. after travel abroad. One must decide between reentering in H1B (or L-1) status, which requires that the passport have a valid H1B (or L-1) visa stamp or utilizing the AP document. AP does not require an approved visa at the U.S. consulate. Such individuals are concerned about the manner they choose for reentering, as this may affect their respective status in the U.S. Answers to many of these questions are in our MurthyBulletin article, Adjustment of Status and Travel : Your Questions Answered! (August 31, 2007), available on MurthyDotCom. The differences between entering in H1B (or L-1) status as opposed to entry on AP, as well as the effect on one's immigration status and employment authorization are explored here for the benefit of our readers.
One Entering on AP Becomes a Parolee
It is a common misconception that entering the U.S. on a valid AP will not impact one's H1B (or L-1) status. An individual with a pending I-485 application, who is eligible to enter in H1B (or L-1) status, may do so without abandoning the I-485 application. Using the AP to enter the U.S., however, terminates one's nonimmigrant H1B (or L-1) status. The reason for this is that an entry on AP is not considered an admission in any particular status but, rather, it is a separate form of entry known as parole. Since the most important document evidencing one's status in the U.S. is the I-94 form, one may easily determine the category of entry by looking at the I-94 issued at the port of entry. One who enters the U.S. on AP has a notation on the I-94 indicating that s/he is paroled into the U.S. An individual who uses a valid H1B (or L-1) visa to enter the U.S. is issued an I-94 specifying the appropriate nonimmigrant status and the date of expiration.
The complete analysis, however, is not quite so simple. Under Legacy INS memoranda issued March 2000 and revised in May 2000, the H (or L) individual who enters on AP does not lose all benefits related to the H-1 (or L-1) status. This is wherein the confusion arises, as explained below.
Parolee may Work for H1B (or L-1) Employer without Valid EAD
Pursuant to the Legacy INS memorandum issued on May 16, 2000, a parolee may continue to work for the H1B (or L-1) employer "if the alien's H1B or L-1 employment authorization would not have expired had the alien not left and returned under advance parole." Such employment is not regarded as being unauthorized, even if the individual does not hold a valid Employment Authorization Document (EAD). In practical terms, while an individual in this situation would no longer hold a nonimmigrant status, s/he still would be able to use the H1B (or L-1) employment authorization to continue working for the H1B (or L-1) employer. This appears to be the most difficult concept to understand, as it does not have any parallel applications within other immigration concepts. The easiest way to grasp this is to think of the unexpired H1B (or L-1) approved petition and I-94 in this situation as employment authorization, which does not give one a corresponding status. Essentially, while the individual does not hold H-1 (or L-1) status after a paroled entry, s/he does retain some of the privileges of that status. It is important to note, however, that in the event that one's I-485 application is denied, the individual would be out of status since s/he would not be maintaining the H (or L) status.
One who chooses to enter the U.S. on AP to resume working for the H1B (or L-1) employer, according to the terms of an unexpired nonimmigrant petition, is eligible to use it as employment authorization. Therefore, s/he does not need a separate EAD. Since the employee continues to hold a valid document permitting employment, the travel and reentry do not trigger any obligations on the part of the employer with respect to Form I-9 prior to the expiration of the H1B (or L-1) petition.
EAD is Safer / H1B Makes Extensions Possible
As a matter of precaution, since the above information is based on a long-standing Legacy INS memo, rather than law or regulation, it may be advisable to possess an EAD in this situation, in the event of any questions on the issue. However, even in that scenario, the employer would not seem to have any additional I-9 obligations, as the last document reviewed by the employer (H1B or L-1 I-94) would be unexpired. Also, the employee would be allowed to file for the H1B (or L-1) extensions even after entering on AP.
Parolees Resume H1B (or L-1) Status upon Admission or upon Approval of H/L Petition
The May 2000 memorandum clarified that an H1B (or L-1) nonimmigrant, who has traveled abroad and reentered the U.S. on AP "may apply for an extension of H1B or L-1 status, if there is a valid and approved petition." If the USCIS approves the petition, this "will have the effect of terminating the grant of parole and admitting the alien in the relevant nonimmigrant classification." Therefore, one's H1B (or L-1) status will be reinstated upon the approval of the petition for extension of status. In order to utilize these provisions, s/he should have resumed employment with the H1B (or L-1) employer following the paroled entry.
Similar Result if Employer Files H1B Amendment
The same effect would be achieved if the current employer files an amended petition. It can also be achieved if the individual works for the H1B employer, and later seeks to extend H1B status through a change of employer. Additionally, since the AP entry does not invalidate the approved H1B (or L-1) petition, the foreign national potentially could regain H (or L) status by traveling abroad and reentering with a valid H (or L) visa, and obtaining an H (or L) notation on the I-94 card at the port of entry. In these circumstances, the H (or L) status will be reinstated, giving one the benefit of continuing in that status for a length of time even if the I-485 ultimately is denied. Thus, when one wishes to maintain H1B (or L-1) status, which is often the case, this still may be accomplished, even if AP is used for entry at some stage in the process. This is particularly straightforward for individuals who have H1B (or L-1) status that will need to be extended shortly after their reentry into the U.S. The H (or L) extension, if approved, will put them back in H (or L) status, even if they last entered on AP. At the Murthy Law Firm, we also see many situations in which one uses AP for emergency travel or shorter trips, but then seeks the H (or L) visa on a later trip, when time allows for a visa application at the consulate.
Conclusion
An H (or L) nonimmigrant with a pending I-485 application may have to make a number of decisions before traveling abroad. These decisions potentially subject one to an unintended result that could have been easily prevented, if anticipated. There are risks and variables to weigh, each of which is case specific. Because each person's situation is different, a consultation with a knowledgeable, experienced attorney is advisable prior to travel. Additionally, since AP can take several months to process, it is often a good idea to request AP just in case it is needed for an emergency or other unexpected situation, even if the intention is to travel as an H (or L) nonimmigrant.
There are questions commonly on the minds of many Murthy Law Firm clients, as well as the greater immigrant community, that involve the effect of reentry into the U.S. on those who hold H1B or L-1 status as well as having approved Advance Parole (AP) based upon pending applications to adjust status (I-485). The law pertaining to this situation is not clear and the result is confusion. Thus, many with both H1B (or L-1) status and AP find themselves faced with the difficult decision of how to reenter the U.S. after travel abroad. One must decide between reentering in H1B (or L-1) status, which requires that the passport have a valid H1B (or L-1) visa stamp or utilizing the AP document. AP does not require an approved visa at the U.S. consulate. Such individuals are concerned about the manner they choose for reentering, as this may affect their respective status in the U.S. Answers to many of these questions are in our MurthyBulletin article, Adjustment of Status and Travel : Your Questions Answered! (August 31, 2007), available on MurthyDotCom. The differences between entering in H1B (or L-1) status as opposed to entry on AP, as well as the effect on one's immigration status and employment authorization are explored here for the benefit of our readers.
One Entering on AP Becomes a Parolee
It is a common misconception that entering the U.S. on a valid AP will not impact one's H1B (or L-1) status. An individual with a pending I-485 application, who is eligible to enter in H1B (or L-1) status, may do so without abandoning the I-485 application. Using the AP to enter the U.S., however, terminates one's nonimmigrant H1B (or L-1) status. The reason for this is that an entry on AP is not considered an admission in any particular status but, rather, it is a separate form of entry known as parole. Since the most important document evidencing one's status in the U.S. is the I-94 form, one may easily determine the category of entry by looking at the I-94 issued at the port of entry. One who enters the U.S. on AP has a notation on the I-94 indicating that s/he is paroled into the U.S. An individual who uses a valid H1B (or L-1) visa to enter the U.S. is issued an I-94 specifying the appropriate nonimmigrant status and the date of expiration.
The complete analysis, however, is not quite so simple. Under Legacy INS memoranda issued March 2000 and revised in May 2000, the H (or L) individual who enters on AP does not lose all benefits related to the H-1 (or L-1) status. This is wherein the confusion arises, as explained below.
Parolee may Work for H1B (or L-1) Employer without Valid EAD
Pursuant to the Legacy INS memorandum issued on May 16, 2000, a parolee may continue to work for the H1B (or L-1) employer "if the alien's H1B or L-1 employment authorization would not have expired had the alien not left and returned under advance parole." Such employment is not regarded as being unauthorized, even if the individual does not hold a valid Employment Authorization Document (EAD). In practical terms, while an individual in this situation would no longer hold a nonimmigrant status, s/he still would be able to use the H1B (or L-1) employment authorization to continue working for the H1B (or L-1) employer. This appears to be the most difficult concept to understand, as it does not have any parallel applications within other immigration concepts. The easiest way to grasp this is to think of the unexpired H1B (or L-1) approved petition and I-94 in this situation as employment authorization, which does not give one a corresponding status. Essentially, while the individual does not hold H-1 (or L-1) status after a paroled entry, s/he does retain some of the privileges of that status. It is important to note, however, that in the event that one's I-485 application is denied, the individual would be out of status since s/he would not be maintaining the H (or L) status.
One who chooses to enter the U.S. on AP to resume working for the H1B (or L-1) employer, according to the terms of an unexpired nonimmigrant petition, is eligible to use it as employment authorization. Therefore, s/he does not need a separate EAD. Since the employee continues to hold a valid document permitting employment, the travel and reentry do not trigger any obligations on the part of the employer with respect to Form I-9 prior to the expiration of the H1B (or L-1) petition.
EAD is Safer / H1B Makes Extensions Possible
As a matter of precaution, since the above information is based on a long-standing Legacy INS memo, rather than law or regulation, it may be advisable to possess an EAD in this situation, in the event of any questions on the issue. However, even in that scenario, the employer would not seem to have any additional I-9 obligations, as the last document reviewed by the employer (H1B or L-1 I-94) would be unexpired. Also, the employee would be allowed to file for the H1B (or L-1) extensions even after entering on AP.
Parolees Resume H1B (or L-1) Status upon Admission or upon Approval of H/L Petition
The May 2000 memorandum clarified that an H1B (or L-1) nonimmigrant, who has traveled abroad and reentered the U.S. on AP "may apply for an extension of H1B or L-1 status, if there is a valid and approved petition." If the USCIS approves the petition, this "will have the effect of terminating the grant of parole and admitting the alien in the relevant nonimmigrant classification." Therefore, one's H1B (or L-1) status will be reinstated upon the approval of the petition for extension of status. In order to utilize these provisions, s/he should have resumed employment with the H1B (or L-1) employer following the paroled entry.
Similar Result if Employer Files H1B Amendment
The same effect would be achieved if the current employer files an amended petition. It can also be achieved if the individual works for the H1B employer, and later seeks to extend H1B status through a change of employer. Additionally, since the AP entry does not invalidate the approved H1B (or L-1) petition, the foreign national potentially could regain H (or L) status by traveling abroad and reentering with a valid H (or L) visa, and obtaining an H (or L) notation on the I-94 card at the port of entry. In these circumstances, the H (or L) status will be reinstated, giving one the benefit of continuing in that status for a length of time even if the I-485 ultimately is denied. Thus, when one wishes to maintain H1B (or L-1) status, which is often the case, this still may be accomplished, even if AP is used for entry at some stage in the process. This is particularly straightforward for individuals who have H1B (or L-1) status that will need to be extended shortly after their reentry into the U.S. The H (or L) extension, if approved, will put them back in H (or L) status, even if they last entered on AP. At the Murthy Law Firm, we also see many situations in which one uses AP for emergency travel or shorter trips, but then seeks the H (or L) visa on a later trip, when time allows for a visa application at the consulate.
Conclusion
An H (or L) nonimmigrant with a pending I-485 application may have to make a number of decisions before traveling abroad. These decisions potentially subject one to an unintended result that could have been easily prevented, if anticipated. There are risks and variables to weigh, each of which is case specific. Because each person's situation is different, a consultation with a knowledgeable, experienced attorney is advisable prior to travel. Additionally, since AP can take several months to process, it is often a good idea to request AP just in case it is needed for an emergency or other unexpected situation, even if the intention is to travel as an H (or L) nonimmigrant.
tattoo gifs animados de amor,
gauravster
05-04 11:32 AM
Many folks suggest that this BIll (when turns into a law) would promote outsourcing..but how does these set of changes being proposed by Odama's admin. would affect outsourcing??
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/obama-takes-aim-at-offshore-tax-havens/?hp
I know it wont "stop" outsourcing in any way but seems like they claim that they are " taking away the tax advantages of companies shipping jobs overseas"...Iam sure its more complicated than that..
However the kind of tone being set by the incumbent these days, I believe reflects the current administrations policies that might trickle to us(documented workers) as well.. not sure..
However this can be also looked at, the adminstartion si trying to "show" that they are doing whatever they can disccourage companies from sending jobs overseas..and then eventually take a stab at CIR..wishful thinking..:D
To read other side of the coin, go to Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124144387757983265.html#mod%3DtestMod%26articleT abs%3Darticle
Not sure if it prevents outsourcing or not. It will have a significant impact on all fortune 500 companies incorporated in US. it would encourage companies to be incorporated somewhere else and set up a subsidiary in the US, so that international income is not taxed.
Exposing tax havens is one thing, but taxing income of corporates generated in another country another.
I think a government should only tax GDP produced within its borders and income of people living within the borders. The benefit of being incorporated in the US is usually that of access to capital markets, but in a globalized world even companies incorporated at other places have this access now.
Overall this is a good bill(esp when applied only to individuals), a lot would depend on what gets passed finally. For corporates the high tax rate is very high(35%, deductions bring it down to an average rate of 25%) and while these deductions are removed, the top rate has to come down, something which seems to be missing.
My view is that with regard to taxes, rather than a fix here, a fix there and making taxes more complicated, it would be better to just simplify it as a whole, abolish most, if not all deductions(keep deductions used by most 90% people which are few) and charge a fixed 15-20% of GDP (with some progressivity).
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/obama-takes-aim-at-offshore-tax-havens/?hp
I know it wont "stop" outsourcing in any way but seems like they claim that they are " taking away the tax advantages of companies shipping jobs overseas"...Iam sure its more complicated than that..
However the kind of tone being set by the incumbent these days, I believe reflects the current administrations policies that might trickle to us(documented workers) as well.. not sure..
However this can be also looked at, the adminstartion si trying to "show" that they are doing whatever they can disccourage companies from sending jobs overseas..and then eventually take a stab at CIR..wishful thinking..:D
To read other side of the coin, go to Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124144387757983265.html#mod%3DtestMod%26articleT abs%3Darticle
Not sure if it prevents outsourcing or not. It will have a significant impact on all fortune 500 companies incorporated in US. it would encourage companies to be incorporated somewhere else and set up a subsidiary in the US, so that international income is not taxed.
Exposing tax havens is one thing, but taxing income of corporates generated in another country another.
I think a government should only tax GDP produced within its borders and income of people living within the borders. The benefit of being incorporated in the US is usually that of access to capital markets, but in a globalized world even companies incorporated at other places have this access now.
Overall this is a good bill(esp when applied only to individuals), a lot would depend on what gets passed finally. For corporates the high tax rate is very high(35%, deductions bring it down to an average rate of 25%) and while these deductions are removed, the top rate has to come down, something which seems to be missing.
My view is that with regard to taxes, rather than a fix here, a fix there and making taxes more complicated, it would be better to just simplify it as a whole, abolish most, if not all deductions(keep deductions used by most 90% people which are few) and charge a fixed 15-20% of GDP (with some progressivity).
more...
pictures Re: Gif Animados, Gliters,
vishalsaboo
01-01 04:12 AM
I dont know if that's completely true. I had my H1B visa appointment on Dec 28th in Mumbai and am in the PIMS verification status also. The visa officer told me that all NIV applicants around the world have to go through the process and admitted that the process was new.
I talked to 3 other H1 candidates right after I was handed the yellow slip and they all had the same experience with different officers. Although its aggravating, hopefully, we'll all get some relief this week.
Good luck to all of us!
I talked to 3 other H1 candidates right after I was handed the yellow slip and they all had the same experience with different officers. Although its aggravating, hopefully, we'll all get some relief this week.
Good luck to all of us!
dresses Corazones+animados+de+amor
nobody
05-31 09:03 PM
Put it on a white background and I bet it'll look heaps better.
more...
makeup Un toque de amor!
kph
05-24 10:07 PM
Every additional dollar they charge for this means every additional vote for these politicians. Who cares about American, technology future?
girlfriend gatitos animados de amor,
deba
06-13 08:05 PM
kasanski33, thanks for the info. I will obviously have to check with a lawyer. Good luck with your trip.
hairstyles animado, fraces de amor,
misanthrope
10-03 12:12 PM
Dude, I'm not flaming at you (it was gctest not you) but you also made really demeaning statements and then tried to retract them when you started getting reds, I think. Its not good to trash others.
Which statements of mine are demeaning?
I edited 2 posts because of grammatical errors.
Which statements of mine are demeaning?
I edited 2 posts because of grammatical errors.
div_bell_2003
10-30 06:31 PM
Hmm , interesting ... I have two EB2 I-140 from the same company as well , one for March 05 (non-RIR->BEC->RIR->approved) and the other for Sep 06 (PERM) and according to my attorney my March 05 PD is applied to my 485.
I was just sitting with both hands together since my dates are not yet current, may be I should call NSC and make sure the correct PD is assigned to my case. So you just call (T/N)SC using POJ method and ask a polite IO about this if you get hold of one ? would an infopass help ?
I was just sitting with both hands together since my dates are not yet current, may be I should call NSC and make sure the correct PD is assigned to my case. So you just call (T/N)SC using POJ method and ask a polite IO about this if you get hold of one ? would an infopass help ?
Archana
04-26 10:02 PM
Our contributions on the way. Keep Spirits High and all of ours hard work will succeed...
No comments:
Post a Comment