webm
05-05 04:34 PM
RD is Jun 1st 07, ND is Jun 7th 07 - TSC
I am in the same boat as yours...Waiting continues..
NOTE:Pls change the title...click on Edit/Go Advanced button and change it.
------------------
EB3-I Oct,2001
485 RD-June,2007
I am in the same boat as yours...Waiting continues..
NOTE:Pls change the title...click on Edit/Go Advanced button and change it.
------------------
EB3-I Oct,2001
485 RD-June,2007
wallpaper Michael Scofield Tattoo
smartboy75
11-06 06:17 PM
From what you have mentioned, the answer to your question lies in the notice that USCIS has sent to your attorney....The letter should have exactly the steps needed and the time to respond....Your best bet is to request the attorney to send you a copy of the letter....
Personally, I think USCIS would request the empoyer to sign the check or re-issue a new one and send it within 30 days....it is not a big deal....
All the best....
Personally, I think USCIS would request the empoyer to sign the check or re-issue a new one and send it within 30 days....it is not a big deal....
All the best....
nashorn
08-12 03:02 PM
They are still processing application received on July 2nd now. I bet none of the application received on July 3rd and later has not been opened yet. So they are safe.
Yeah so far only TWO notices though. I am seriously beginning to wonder if filers between July 2 - July 17 are actually going to be penalized coz NOTHING in USCIS is ever "FIFO".
Yeah so far only TWO notices though. I am seriously beginning to wonder if filers between July 2 - July 17 are actually going to be penalized coz NOTHING in USCIS is ever "FIFO".
2011 michael scofield tattoos.
sam_hoosier
09-15 12:40 PM
Were there some problems with the case ? RFEs ??:confused:
more...
kirupa
07-27 05:19 AM
Instead of ShowDialog, try using just Show. See if that fixes the issue.
hdblue
05-10 11:55 PM
PVGanesh,
Yes, affidavits or letter on employer letterheads from your colleagues about your progressive experience should suffice.For EB2 you need to prove that you have Masters or Bachelors with five years of progressive experience.
Good luck.
Cheers
HI,
Thank for your information. I have got some my ideals. I believe that it's useful.
If you want to do more info, you also visit at: Duties responsibilities (http://dutiesresponsibilities.info/)
Best rgs and I'll return back.
Yes, affidavits or letter on employer letterheads from your colleagues about your progressive experience should suffice.For EB2 you need to prove that you have Masters or Bachelors with five years of progressive experience.
Good luck.
Cheers
HI,
Thank for your information. I have got some my ideals. I believe that it's useful.
If you want to do more info, you also visit at: Duties responsibilities (http://dutiesresponsibilities.info/)
Best rgs and I'll return back.
more...
askreddy
12-11 11:57 PM
Hi
My wife need to travel to india urgently. Our visa/I94 expired in Oct. We already applied 485 and is pending.
1) Will there be any issue at airpot as I94 is expired.A xerox copy of 485 receipt is sufficient.
2) Does she need to travel any path in this case( I heard thru London is issue if visa is expired.France/Amsterdam Etcc..)
Thanks in advance.
Sree
My wife need to travel to india urgently. Our visa/I94 expired in Oct. We already applied 485 and is pending.
1) Will there be any issue at airpot as I94 is expired.A xerox copy of 485 receipt is sufficient.
2) Does she need to travel any path in this case( I heard thru London is issue if visa is expired.France/Amsterdam Etcc..)
Thanks in advance.
Sree
2010 Michael Scofield Tattoos
pappu
03-14 03:12 PM
could someone volunteer on this thread to set up a call and inform everyone?
more...
ak_2006
05-05 06:04 PM
On home page clikc on forums. Then select a topic. You should see new thread there.
Thanks for the quick reply...Got it.
Thanks for the quick reply...Got it.
hair Michael Scofield#39;s tattoos
lkapildev
01-10 04:28 PM
:) May be you are caught on Name Check process.. Call USCIS and get your namecheck status.
Also USCIS process is a complete mess, if someone entered you under CHN quota then 2020. I hope that may not be the case as they have accepted your application even your PD 2007. You should be fine, have patience Use AC21 if you are not happy with your employeer. 6 months from approval of I-140 count that and move on.
Also USCIS process is a complete mess, if someone entered you under CHN quota then 2020. I hope that may not be the case as they have accepted your application even your PD 2007. You should be fine, have patience Use AC21 if you are not happy with your employeer. 6 months from approval of I-140 count that and move on.
more...
sertasheep
08-03 09:43 PM
Bump ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
hot Prison Break Michael Scofield
radhay
12-02 01:12 PM
just checked your PM and replied.
more...
house prison break tattoo.
mmpsbarad
09-27 07:31 PM
Thank you all for your useful suggestions.
Mine is a similar case but the only unfortunate thing was that my H1-B is approved and effective from October 1st. My position was terminated in July and now I want to continue my OPT (expires in Jan 2010 if nothing is done). Now another company is ready to give me offer and file H1B.
1. Is it possible to update the SEVIS record by DSO b4 October 1st so that I can that I can buy some time in the transition. Note: I did not violate my 90 day unemployment period during OPT.
2. If it is not possible to go back to my OPT, how much time I have after October 1st before I apply for the another H1 from the new company? and when I can start working in this case?
Thank you.
Mine is a similar case but the only unfortunate thing was that my H1-B is approved and effective from October 1st. My position was terminated in July and now I want to continue my OPT (expires in Jan 2010 if nothing is done). Now another company is ready to give me offer and file H1B.
1. Is it possible to update the SEVIS record by DSO b4 October 1st so that I can that I can buy some time in the transition. Note: I did not violate my 90 day unemployment period during OPT.
2. If it is not possible to go back to my OPT, how much time I have after October 1st before I apply for the another H1 from the new company? and when I can start working in this case?
Thank you.
tattoo michael scofield tattoos. michael scofield tattoo,; michael scofield tattoo,
rahul2699
05-19 11:32 AM
you need to spend 12 months outside of US to apply -- My understanding is that you have to wait 12 months before applying.
more...
pictures michael scofield tattoos.
vnsriv
10-10 04:24 PM
I got my GC on 09/18/07. Now my consulting company (how sponsored my GC) is having issues with the client and client is thinking to terminate the contract.
Client want to bring me to there pay roll. In other words they are offering my permanent position.
My consulting company does not have immediate opening for me.
It is not even a month that I got my GC. And I am with the same consulting company for about 6.5 years now.
Please help me. What should I do? If I accept the offer will I get problem at citizenship stage? If I do not accept offer I will loose job and I don't know how much time I have to wait till my consulting company find job for me.
Accept the offer like I am planning to do. Job is most important.
Client want to bring me to there pay roll. In other words they are offering my permanent position.
My consulting company does not have immediate opening for me.
It is not even a month that I got my GC. And I am with the same consulting company for about 6.5 years now.
Please help me. What should I do? If I accept the offer will I get problem at citizenship stage? If I do not accept offer I will loose job and I don't know how much time I have to wait till my consulting company find job for me.
Accept the offer like I am planning to do. Job is most important.
dresses images Michael Scofield#39;s
pvganesh
10-28 01:17 AM
Thanks again for your advice..
I have experience as 'systems analyst' continuously but job duties/responsibilities increased over last 7 years; during this time received multiple trainings, certifications, outstanding performer awards and traveled other countries for work etc. Will these help in proving 'progressive experience? My PERM requires Masters or 60 months of experience in any of the positions; programmer or IT analyst or systems analyst. Would it be sufficient in this case, if we can reflect progressive job duties in experience letters.
I have seen in many forum posts that affidavits from co-workers at client location (not colleagues) are valid, is this really true?
I'm planning to have a consultation with an attorney for a second opinion on this and discuss the strategy, how this petition should be filed, do you recommend?
Thanks in advance.
PVGanesh
I have experience as 'systems analyst' continuously but job duties/responsibilities increased over last 7 years; during this time received multiple trainings, certifications, outstanding performer awards and traveled other countries for work etc. Will these help in proving 'progressive experience? My PERM requires Masters or 60 months of experience in any of the positions; programmer or IT analyst or systems analyst. Would it be sufficient in this case, if we can reflect progressive job duties in experience letters.
I have seen in many forum posts that affidavits from co-workers at client location (not colleagues) are valid, is this really true?
I'm planning to have a consultation with an attorney for a second opinion on this and discuss the strategy, how this petition should be filed, do you recommend?
Thanks in advance.
PVGanesh
more...
makeup Prison Break Tattoo Long
rockstart
10-18 12:31 PM
I have submited my FP all 10 fingers when I was working for my past employer which was a financial company dealing in Credit Cards business. They collect it when they issue badge as part of security and its a federal requirement for financial company. I am not sure if they maintain it internally or send it to FBI for storage does any one have any info?
girlfriend In honor of Michael Scofield,
Rsamuga
07-16 03:03 PM
Hi All-
I have a tricky scenario here, I need some input/guidance.
I came to USA during Dec 2003 through a California based Indian Consulting firm. I worked for him for 2 years. In between, he
applied the petition for my labor in April 2005 on eB2 Category and my responsibility was to pay for the GREEN CARD expenses.
During Oct 2005, I joined an American company as permanent employee. Even after that, due to the good terms with my previous employer he agreed to apply for my I-140 during 2007 June and I took care of the financial aspect of it. The known understanding was that I will join his company in near future, apply the I-485 and get the GC.
Two months back my I-140 got approved and I was waiting for the priority date to be current. Last week, I came back from my India trip. I got engaged during my trip and my marriage has been fixed in Nov'08. Today when I checked the UCSIS site, the priority date for the eB2 category is current.
My questions are:
1) At this point of time, I do not want to join my old employer.Working with the current American company, can I still proceed and apply for the I-485 through my previous employer ??.
2) If not, Can I use the earlier priority date(April 2005) by applying for a fresh GC(perm labor/ I-140) from my current employer?
3) To use the earlier priority date(April 2005), do I need to take approval letter from my previous employer ? Is there any chance that the old priority date can be revoked by the employer ??
If any of you guys have had/come across the same kind of scenario, please do let me know what would be the best way to proceed.
I really appreciate your response in this regard.
Thanks!!
I have a tricky scenario here, I need some input/guidance.
I came to USA during Dec 2003 through a California based Indian Consulting firm. I worked for him for 2 years. In between, he
applied the petition for my labor in April 2005 on eB2 Category and my responsibility was to pay for the GREEN CARD expenses.
During Oct 2005, I joined an American company as permanent employee. Even after that, due to the good terms with my previous employer he agreed to apply for my I-140 during 2007 June and I took care of the financial aspect of it. The known understanding was that I will join his company in near future, apply the I-485 and get the GC.
Two months back my I-140 got approved and I was waiting for the priority date to be current. Last week, I came back from my India trip. I got engaged during my trip and my marriage has been fixed in Nov'08. Today when I checked the UCSIS site, the priority date for the eB2 category is current.
My questions are:
1) At this point of time, I do not want to join my old employer.Working with the current American company, can I still proceed and apply for the I-485 through my previous employer ??.
2) If not, Can I use the earlier priority date(April 2005) by applying for a fresh GC(perm labor/ I-140) from my current employer?
3) To use the earlier priority date(April 2005), do I need to take approval letter from my previous employer ? Is there any chance that the old priority date can be revoked by the employer ??
If any of you guys have had/come across the same kind of scenario, please do let me know what would be the best way to proceed.
I really appreciate your response in this regard.
Thanks!!
hairstyles Prison break michael scofield
coopheal
09-13 03:42 PM
I am talking about Class Action Lawsuites (not sure if it applies to Fefderal agencies).
btw, I dont get why I am already 'infamous' :)
I am sure you are well aquinted with IV and EB process.
You proudly keep profile incomplete....
Post a "noval" idea about law suit in first few posts (most likely you have another IV handle too).....
....
still wondering why you are so "famous"....
btw, I dont get why I am already 'infamous' :)
I am sure you are well aquinted with IV and EB process.
You proudly keep profile incomplete....
Post a "noval" idea about law suit in first few posts (most likely you have another IV handle too).....
....
still wondering why you are so "famous"....
learning01
02-25 05:03 PM
This is the most compelling piece I read about why this country should do more for scientists and engineers who are on temporary work visas. Read it till the end and enjoy.
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
LostInGCProcess
03-03 01:22 AM
My answers in Blue....
Thanks SL & Lost in GC process,
Sorry for not being clear in C & D. I am in US. The question I meant to ask is about the the time that I am not physically present in US i.e. If I went for vacction in India for a month, can that one month be included in my H1B1 extension since I was not physically present in US. In other words I would file for 1.1 year extension as opposed to 1 year
Yes, you can recapture the time spent outside the US on your H1b...if thats what you are trying to ask...usually that is done when you are approaching the 6th year on theH1b
One the same topic, a friend of mine got a three year extension post 6 years of H1B. When asked, his lawyer informed, if you have an approved I140 then you are elegible for 3 years extension as opposed to 1 year. Is this true. Can some refer to the right CFR's
Desi3933 has answered
Thanks
Senthil
Thanks SL & Lost in GC process,
Sorry for not being clear in C & D. I am in US. The question I meant to ask is about the the time that I am not physically present in US i.e. If I went for vacction in India for a month, can that one month be included in my H1B1 extension since I was not physically present in US. In other words I would file for 1.1 year extension as opposed to 1 year
Yes, you can recapture the time spent outside the US on your H1b...if thats what you are trying to ask...usually that is done when you are approaching the 6th year on theH1b
One the same topic, a friend of mine got a three year extension post 6 years of H1B. When asked, his lawyer informed, if you have an approved I140 then you are elegible for 3 years extension as opposed to 1 year. Is this true. Can some refer to the right CFR's
Desi3933 has answered
Thanks
Senthil
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét