rameshk75
02-14 06:56 PM
I will go with either with Obama/McCain... no one will support us so easily..we have support IV and raise the voice !!
wallpaper Submit your wallpapers to
kondur_007
08-08 08:36 PM
actually .. here is how it should work.
You enter your email address.
You pick how you want the LUDs. soft/hard, how many per week, etc
You pick the randomized approval window: a week, a month of a year. You get to decide how long this fake approval torture lasts.So if you choose a month, you could get fake the approval email anywhere between now and a month from now... our system randomly decides when....
ooo shit wait.... this is getting to be just like the USCIS current system.... they might come after me for copying their idea.
:D:D:D
Good one...
You enter your email address.
You pick how you want the LUDs. soft/hard, how many per week, etc
You pick the randomized approval window: a week, a month of a year. You get to decide how long this fake approval torture lasts.So if you choose a month, you could get fake the approval email anywhere between now and a month from now... our system randomly decides when....
ooo shit wait.... this is getting to be just like the USCIS current system.... they might come after me for copying their idea.
:D:D:D
Good one...
DDash
03-11 07:08 PM
Why she needs SSN for filing tax return? ITIN can be used.
Thats why! :(
Thats why! :(
2011 Kirby Minimal Wallpaper by
LostInGCProcess
09-20 12:19 AM
It's not just for finger print, its mainly for the photograph. As you go for the photograph they also take finger print (just right index finger) again for records. I have EAD renewal biometrics appointment end of this month but I went 15 days in advance and got that done.
Oh!! can you go earlier then the actual date of appointment?
Oh!! can you go earlier then the actual date of appointment?
more...
ind_game
05-16 02:29 AM
The meaning of retroactive means - once the case gets reopened after MTR or AAO then your unlawful presence counter will revert back to "zero" - folks correct me if my interpretation is wrong
That is correct..........key sentence "The alien will deemed to have not accrued unlawful presence"
That is correct..........key sentence "The alien will deemed to have not accrued unlawful presence"
pd_recapturing
06-13 09:43 AM
I think, if by June 30th if your application is pending, you will get your EAD extension based on this new rule i.e 2 year of PD is not current or 1 yr if PD is current on 30th June. People will start seeing it in a couple of weeks after June 30.
I guess, it makes sense to aaply it now if you can as based on USCiS speed, you will most probably be pending by June 30.
I guess, it makes sense to aaply it now if you can as based on USCiS speed, you will most probably be pending by June 30.
more...
jungalee43
09-22 11:40 AM
Hon. Sen Cornyn did try to attach SKIL bill to one Appropriation bill in July 2007. I don't remember which bill. It was voted down 55 (in favor) - 45 (against); just 2 votes short of fillibuster. Democrats strongly opposed the bill. Leading the opposition charge were Sen. Durbin and Sen. Kennedy. This time around Sen. Sessions just enjoyed the show.
After that no one knows whether SKIL is dead.
After that no one knows whether SKIL is dead.
2010 MINIMAL Wallpaper 2 by
ravise
09-05 06:35 PM
gurus,
can you please post your suggestions.
can you please post your suggestions.
more...
dreamgc_real
11-05 02:57 PM
TAKEAWAYS FROM ELECTION 2010
No doubt you've already heard from plenty of pundits explaining yesterday's election. But from the immigration perspective, there are some important things to note that others might not be saying. Obviously, it's going to be a tougher environment for measures affecting illegally present immigrants. But let's get into some of the specifics.
First, what is the impact of the big shift in the House of Representatives? The losses in the House last night actually don't change that much in terms of the actual likely votes on bills affecting illegal immigration. That's because most of the ousted Democrats were Blue Dog conservatives who were much less likely to support a comprehensive immigration bill than their liberal counterparts.
Where the results are likely to have the biggest impact is at the committee level. The House Immigration Subcommittee has been a magnet for years for some of the most anti-immigrant members of the GOP. It's very likely that the next Chair of the committee will be someone VERY unfriendly. Of course, longer term thinkers in the GOP leadership might want to see about getting some voices of moderation on that committee if they hope to win over Latino voters. But if the past is an indication, the new Chair is going to be someone the Federation for American Immigration Reform is going to have on its speed dial.
The Senate remains in Democratic hands though some pro-immigrant voices will be gone. Pennsylvania Arlen Spector, a key co-sponsor of immigration legislation in the past, is leaving. Sam Brownback (R-KS), also a co-sponsor in the past of comprehensive immigration reform legislation, is departing the Senate to become Kansas' new governor. His replacement, Jerry Moran, actually has been a champion of physician immigration during his tenure in the House so perhaps he will be a supporter of legal immigration reform.The loss of the President's old Senate seat in Illinois is tough news for pro-immigration advocates as is the departure of Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. On the other hand, pro-immigration advocates can be cheered by the Democrats' overall better than expected performance in the Senate including the win by Majority Leader Harry Reid. And two of the Democratic losses from last night - Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas and Evan Bayh's seat in Indiana - may be less serious since the two have been unreliable votes on immigration (though Bayh, unlike Lincoln, supported the DREAM Act in September's vote on the issue).
Aside from having fewer overall pro-immigration supporters in the Senate (especially on issues involving illegal immigration), there are some other changes that might be coming. First, will Harry Reid step aside as Majority Leader as some have suggested he might given the poor performance of Democrats yesterday? If he does, Senators Schumer of New York and Durbin of Illinois are expected to fight for the spot. Schumer is the current very pro-immigration Chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee. Durbin, also on the Immigration Subcommittee is great on issues affecting illegally present immigrants, but has been terrible when it comes to legal immigration. One fear I have is that Schumer would get Majority Leader and Durbin would become the Chair of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee. Hopefully, pro-business immigration groups will have be considered when the chair of the committee is decided if Schumer leaves the post. How about a swap of Harry Reid for the Immigration Subcommittee Chair and Schumer for Majority Leader?
As I noted yesterday, Senator-Elect Marco Rubio of Florida made a point of giving an inspriring tribute to his father's immigrant dreams so perhaps he will be a new pro-immigration voice in the GOP and seek out a seat on the Immigration Subcommittee as his predecessor Mel Martinez did.
Pro-immigration advocates are likely not going to be happy about yesterday's results in governors races around the country. Rick Scott is the apparent winner in Florida. The GOP nominee made a big point of pointing out his support for the Arizona bill. Not surprisingly, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer easily won. Nebraska's new governor-elect ran hard on an anti-immigrant agenda. And with the GOP picking up 15 state legislatures and more than 500 legislators yesterday, anti-immigration bills are likely to increase in number unless the Supreme Court clamps down on them.
Did yesterday's voters intend to send a message on immigration? Overwhelmingly, the answer is no. Immigration ranked a distant fourth in terms of issues of most importance to voters. Only 8% of voters yesterday considered illegal immigration the most important issue facing the country compared to 62% who thought the economy was the priority issue. 8% is actually on the high side compared to prior elections, not a surprise given the Arizona debate this year, but it's still quite low overall and should hopefully give some comfort to those who think casting a pro-immigration vote is a ticket to a primary opponent and ousting by the voters.
With all that said, what can we expect from Washington on immigration issues over the next two years. First, I think it is safe to say that comprehensive immigration reform is dead until at least 2013 and that's only if the Democrats recapture most of the seats they lost yesterday. Pro-immigration groups had started this year to quietly abandon the idea that comprehensive immigration reform was the only approach to repairing the broken immigration system. That's why the DREAM Act as a standalone immigration fix has gained traction. But I think we're likely to see the floodgates open for efforts to pass small bills again and comprehensive immigration reform advocacy will largely be over as a legislative strategy.
Personally, I'm looking forward to getting to work on trying to make smaller fixes. This has been a lost decade for the immigration system with virtually no lawmaking since 2000. A number of critically needed changes - particularly those relating to legal immigration - that probably had the votes to pass were held up in the name of maximizing support for CIR. Expect to see a push for smaller bills affecting investors and business creators, high skilled workers, health care workers, AgJobs, DREAM, family immigration, etc. Chances are that we're going to see a push from the GOP to make E-Verify universal, more money for border security, tougher penalties on employer immigration violators and generally more enforcement. It's likely that support for legal immigration reform by the GOP will come with the price tag of adding in more immigration enforcement.
A nightmare scenario for pro-immigration folks is if the new Congress takes a protectionist tilt and labor left Democrats and xenophobic Republicans get together to push anti-business immigration bills targeting employment immigration. We've seen this in the case of past measures where Bernard Sanders, Richard Durbin and Chuck Grassley have co-sponsored protectionist immigration bills.
We could see some immediate action on immigration issues in the lame duck session that will be called shortly by Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi. Senator Reid has already said he intends to re-introduce the DREAM Act and he needs just four votes to get the bill over the finish line. It is possible that he could get a few of the departing Senators to change their votes. Perhaps he can get Senators Voinovich, Bennett, Brownback, Gregg, LeMieux, or Lincoln to change their votes. All are theoretically "yes" votes. Or he might have a shot at getting New England Senators Brown, Snowe and Collins to reconsider. And the one no-show on the last vote was Lisa Murkowski, previously a moderate on immigration who has told Alaska's Democrats that in exchange for sending her back to Congress as a write-in independent candidate, she would think independently. So maybe she is persuadable.
Finally, let us not forget that we still have a pro-immigration President. He has largely deferred to Congress to work out immigration reform. His strategy has been largely to focus on beefing up enforcement in order to make it easier to make the case that the federal government has gotten illegal immigration under control. Remember the memo from a few months back discussing ideas for how the Administration could get a lot done on immigration independent of Congress? It may be time to blow the dust off that document. Of course, some in the GOP will go berzerk if that happens. But we may see President Obama become a lot more confrontational on this issue if it looks like he risks having no progress to show Latino voters after four years of his presidency.
Now we wait and see.
No doubt you've already heard from plenty of pundits explaining yesterday's election. But from the immigration perspective, there are some important things to note that others might not be saying. Obviously, it's going to be a tougher environment for measures affecting illegally present immigrants. But let's get into some of the specifics.
First, what is the impact of the big shift in the House of Representatives? The losses in the House last night actually don't change that much in terms of the actual likely votes on bills affecting illegal immigration. That's because most of the ousted Democrats were Blue Dog conservatives who were much less likely to support a comprehensive immigration bill than their liberal counterparts.
Where the results are likely to have the biggest impact is at the committee level. The House Immigration Subcommittee has been a magnet for years for some of the most anti-immigrant members of the GOP. It's very likely that the next Chair of the committee will be someone VERY unfriendly. Of course, longer term thinkers in the GOP leadership might want to see about getting some voices of moderation on that committee if they hope to win over Latino voters. But if the past is an indication, the new Chair is going to be someone the Federation for American Immigration Reform is going to have on its speed dial.
The Senate remains in Democratic hands though some pro-immigrant voices will be gone. Pennsylvania Arlen Spector, a key co-sponsor of immigration legislation in the past, is leaving. Sam Brownback (R-KS), also a co-sponsor in the past of comprehensive immigration reform legislation, is departing the Senate to become Kansas' new governor. His replacement, Jerry Moran, actually has been a champion of physician immigration during his tenure in the House so perhaps he will be a supporter of legal immigration reform.The loss of the President's old Senate seat in Illinois is tough news for pro-immigration advocates as is the departure of Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. On the other hand, pro-immigration advocates can be cheered by the Democrats' overall better than expected performance in the Senate including the win by Majority Leader Harry Reid. And two of the Democratic losses from last night - Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas and Evan Bayh's seat in Indiana - may be less serious since the two have been unreliable votes on immigration (though Bayh, unlike Lincoln, supported the DREAM Act in September's vote on the issue).
Aside from having fewer overall pro-immigration supporters in the Senate (especially on issues involving illegal immigration), there are some other changes that might be coming. First, will Harry Reid step aside as Majority Leader as some have suggested he might given the poor performance of Democrats yesterday? If he does, Senators Schumer of New York and Durbin of Illinois are expected to fight for the spot. Schumer is the current very pro-immigration Chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee. Durbin, also on the Immigration Subcommittee is great on issues affecting illegally present immigrants, but has been terrible when it comes to legal immigration. One fear I have is that Schumer would get Majority Leader and Durbin would become the Chair of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee. Hopefully, pro-business immigration groups will have be considered when the chair of the committee is decided if Schumer leaves the post. How about a swap of Harry Reid for the Immigration Subcommittee Chair and Schumer for Majority Leader?
As I noted yesterday, Senator-Elect Marco Rubio of Florida made a point of giving an inspriring tribute to his father's immigrant dreams so perhaps he will be a new pro-immigration voice in the GOP and seek out a seat on the Immigration Subcommittee as his predecessor Mel Martinez did.
Pro-immigration advocates are likely not going to be happy about yesterday's results in governors races around the country. Rick Scott is the apparent winner in Florida. The GOP nominee made a big point of pointing out his support for the Arizona bill. Not surprisingly, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer easily won. Nebraska's new governor-elect ran hard on an anti-immigrant agenda. And with the GOP picking up 15 state legislatures and more than 500 legislators yesterday, anti-immigration bills are likely to increase in number unless the Supreme Court clamps down on them.
Did yesterday's voters intend to send a message on immigration? Overwhelmingly, the answer is no. Immigration ranked a distant fourth in terms of issues of most importance to voters. Only 8% of voters yesterday considered illegal immigration the most important issue facing the country compared to 62% who thought the economy was the priority issue. 8% is actually on the high side compared to prior elections, not a surprise given the Arizona debate this year, but it's still quite low overall and should hopefully give some comfort to those who think casting a pro-immigration vote is a ticket to a primary opponent and ousting by the voters.
With all that said, what can we expect from Washington on immigration issues over the next two years. First, I think it is safe to say that comprehensive immigration reform is dead until at least 2013 and that's only if the Democrats recapture most of the seats they lost yesterday. Pro-immigration groups had started this year to quietly abandon the idea that comprehensive immigration reform was the only approach to repairing the broken immigration system. That's why the DREAM Act as a standalone immigration fix has gained traction. But I think we're likely to see the floodgates open for efforts to pass small bills again and comprehensive immigration reform advocacy will largely be over as a legislative strategy.
Personally, I'm looking forward to getting to work on trying to make smaller fixes. This has been a lost decade for the immigration system with virtually no lawmaking since 2000. A number of critically needed changes - particularly those relating to legal immigration - that probably had the votes to pass were held up in the name of maximizing support for CIR. Expect to see a push for smaller bills affecting investors and business creators, high skilled workers, health care workers, AgJobs, DREAM, family immigration, etc. Chances are that we're going to see a push from the GOP to make E-Verify universal, more money for border security, tougher penalties on employer immigration violators and generally more enforcement. It's likely that support for legal immigration reform by the GOP will come with the price tag of adding in more immigration enforcement.
A nightmare scenario for pro-immigration folks is if the new Congress takes a protectionist tilt and labor left Democrats and xenophobic Republicans get together to push anti-business immigration bills targeting employment immigration. We've seen this in the case of past measures where Bernard Sanders, Richard Durbin and Chuck Grassley have co-sponsored protectionist immigration bills.
We could see some immediate action on immigration issues in the lame duck session that will be called shortly by Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi. Senator Reid has already said he intends to re-introduce the DREAM Act and he needs just four votes to get the bill over the finish line. It is possible that he could get a few of the departing Senators to change their votes. Perhaps he can get Senators Voinovich, Bennett, Brownback, Gregg, LeMieux, or Lincoln to change their votes. All are theoretically "yes" votes. Or he might have a shot at getting New England Senators Brown, Snowe and Collins to reconsider. And the one no-show on the last vote was Lisa Murkowski, previously a moderate on immigration who has told Alaska's Democrats that in exchange for sending her back to Congress as a write-in independent candidate, she would think independently. So maybe she is persuadable.
Finally, let us not forget that we still have a pro-immigration President. He has largely deferred to Congress to work out immigration reform. His strategy has been largely to focus on beefing up enforcement in order to make it easier to make the case that the federal government has gotten illegal immigration under control. Remember the memo from a few months back discussing ideas for how the Administration could get a lot done on immigration independent of Congress? It may be time to blow the dust off that document. Of course, some in the GOP will go berzerk if that happens. But we may see President Obama become a lot more confrontational on this issue if it looks like he risks having no progress to show Latino voters after four years of his presidency.
Now we wait and see.
hair 75 Amazing Minimal Wallpapers
gcdreamer05
11-20 10:04 AM
IV Users,
If a person has EAD/AP, what are the possible airlines that we can travel to India?
I remember airlines like british airways ask for a valid visa (or) transit visa.
Any one travelled on the following airlines with EAD/AP without transit visa?
1) Gulf Air
2) Jet airways
3) Lufthansa
4) Etihad airways
5) Continental
6) Air france,
7) American airlines
Please share your experiences....
If a person has EAD/AP, what are the possible airlines that we can travel to India?
I remember airlines like british airways ask for a valid visa (or) transit visa.
Any one travelled on the following airlines with EAD/AP without transit visa?
1) Gulf Air
2) Jet airways
3) Lufthansa
4) Etihad airways
5) Continental
6) Air france,
7) American airlines
Please share your experiences....
more...
alterego
12-10 05:03 PM
After reading so much into AC21 i'm still missing something.
Please consider this scenario.
I'm in good terms with the original GC sponsoring employer and have an approved I140. I want to switch to an entirely diff job(or may be even unemployed) using EAD. I can produce an offer letter (at the time of adjudication or for RFE) saying this company (or if they go out of business a diff company) will hire me in the same occupation once the GC is approved. In that case will AC21 come into play? So do i need to worry about doing a same/similar occupation while on EAD if i have a future job offer?
I remember reading unitednation doing something similar.
TIA
It is all about intent. You have to convince the IO, that you planned to do that from the start. IF you were on a 60K job, then got EAD and moved into a much more lucrative field and started earning 120K, you just might have a tough time convincing the IO that you planned to go back to your 60K job once you got your green card. Remember this is EB immigration and job specific. If you change jobs, it is better to stick to the same/similar job classification. Once you do this, I am sure you will have a little more leeway with the job salary etc.
That is my take on things. This is not legal advise.
Please consider this scenario.
I'm in good terms with the original GC sponsoring employer and have an approved I140. I want to switch to an entirely diff job(or may be even unemployed) using EAD. I can produce an offer letter (at the time of adjudication or for RFE) saying this company (or if they go out of business a diff company) will hire me in the same occupation once the GC is approved. In that case will AC21 come into play? So do i need to worry about doing a same/similar occupation while on EAD if i have a future job offer?
I remember reading unitednation doing something similar.
TIA
It is all about intent. You have to convince the IO, that you planned to do that from the start. IF you were on a 60K job, then got EAD and moved into a much more lucrative field and started earning 120K, you just might have a tough time convincing the IO that you planned to go back to your 60K job once you got your green card. Remember this is EB immigration and job specific. If you change jobs, it is better to stick to the same/similar job classification. Once you do this, I am sure you will have a little more leeway with the job salary etc.
That is my take on things. This is not legal advise.
hot Desktop Wallpapers
amsgc
04-25 01:21 AM
Is the 200,000 only for NSC or is it NSC+TSC?
I called NSC IO to my surprise this time it was a nice IO , in few points what she said was
1)They have 200,000 employment based applications pending
...
I called NSC IO to my surprise this time it was a nice IO , in few points what she said was
1)They have 200,000 employment based applications pending
...
more...
house minimal wallpaper by ~henriksn
GCWORRIES
01-03 07:51 PM
369,
Since you changed status from F1 to H4, you cannot go to Canada for visa stamping. It is always to be done in the country of origin. A friend's wife had gone to Canada for stamping from H4 to H1, the consulate denied the petition and referred that the applicant travel to country of origin for visa stamping. She had to endure a lot of issues (since the she was stamping for H1) at Chennai and finally got the visa and returned back after nearly 3 months. Since you are getting an H4 stamped, please ensure that you carry all documents as requested in the consulate of your country of origin.
Since you changed status from F1 to H4, you cannot go to Canada for visa stamping. It is always to be done in the country of origin. A friend's wife had gone to Canada for stamping from H4 to H1, the consulate denied the petition and referred that the applicant travel to country of origin for visa stamping. She had to endure a lot of issues (since the she was stamping for H1) at Chennai and finally got the visa and returned back after nearly 3 months. Since you are getting an H4 stamped, please ensure that you carry all documents as requested in the consulate of your country of origin.
tattoo Minimal Wallpaper
Humpakistani
03-26 02:11 AM
well the link provided by a user is such wonderful and very helpful for all of us because the same situations i were facing and now i am comfortable after visiting the link because i get all the information and thanks for the helping and this is such nice forum
more...
pictures The Love Wallpaper - minimal
rsirpal
08-17 02:14 PM
I am on EAD & AP and I was denied life insurance from Allstate. However AAA gave it to me.
dresses minimal wallpaper. minimal
kiks2580
07-16 10:39 AM
July 28th sounds good! Count me in...I can get at least 10-15 people...maybe more...Boston Chapter IV members/core members, can you setup a conference call or face to face meeting?
more...
makeup minimal wallpaper, no2. by
arkrish68
08-16 01:20 PM
Same here. NSC --> CSC --> NSC transferred case. No update yet.
Same here mine was transferred from NSC -> CSC -> NSC. I took Infopass and the IO told that everything is clear with my case but my wife biometrics is missing. We both did our biometrics on the same day and I showed the copy of the biometrics. He took a copy of it and told that he will email to NSC regarding this.
It seems most of the transferred cases are missing biometrics or having some issue.
I am planning to meet the seneator and explain to her the issues.
Same here mine was transferred from NSC -> CSC -> NSC. I took Infopass and the IO told that everything is clear with my case but my wife biometrics is missing. We both did our biometrics on the same day and I showed the copy of the biometrics. He took a copy of it and told that he will email to NSC regarding this.
It seems most of the transferred cases are missing biometrics or having some issue.
I am planning to meet the seneator and explain to her the issues.
girlfriend minimal wallpaper. girlie
chil3
03-16 10:21 PM
We will have lesser pain If we think as if we are living in some middle east country where no immigrant gets citizenship I believe ...they just keep issuing visa after every two years.
Thinking they will do something in favor of legal immigrants seems almost impossible in this economic situation. That too when they are not letting pass healthcare bill which possibly could be beneficial for Americans.
I have less pain now when I think I am in mid east with more freedom...I have to keep renewing EAD & any moment of time I could be denied and go back to own country..
GC wait is endless ...at least for EB3
Thinking they will do something in favor of legal immigrants seems almost impossible in this economic situation. That too when they are not letting pass healthcare bill which possibly could be beneficial for Americans.
I have less pain now when I think I am in mid east with more freedom...I have to keep renewing EAD & any moment of time I could be denied and go back to own country..
GC wait is endless ...at least for EB3
hairstyles Starry Evening Wallpaper by
mattresscoil
11-05 03:01 PM
Hi,
Can somebody work on 2 H1Bs at one time.
Company A is not willing to pay due to business loss.
Company B is willing to offer full time H1B employment only if transfer, and not on contract.
So if an employee moves from company A to company B in good terms, what happens to A's H1 Visa. Can the employee go back to A in future if needed after working for B for sometime. A is holding the greencard and ofcourse 485 is pending.
Just in case the employee wants to be in A's payroll also, but not get paid. How does that work.
What is the legal way in which A's H1 is not cancelled, and one can work with B, and then go back to A after sometime on same old A's H1.
Thank You,
Bobby.
Robert_Kumar:
One can have any number of H1B's but at any given time only one employer can employ you.
You have an approved H1B with company A
You have an approved H1B with company B
You can move over to B and then if you are not satisfied, you can move back to A. but remember you can move back to A only if (H1B with A is not expired and H1B with A is not withdrawn)
If A agrees to keep your H1B and you are on a payroll with some other company B/C/D, they are not obligated to withdraw the H1B.
GC is future employment - it does not mean that you should be working for them in the meanwhile. After you get your GC you are required/better off working for company A for atleast 6 mos.
Remember this is my understanding - Talk to an attorney if you need solid legal advice.
Can somebody work on 2 H1Bs at one time.
Company A is not willing to pay due to business loss.
Company B is willing to offer full time H1B employment only if transfer, and not on contract.
So if an employee moves from company A to company B in good terms, what happens to A's H1 Visa. Can the employee go back to A in future if needed after working for B for sometime. A is holding the greencard and ofcourse 485 is pending.
Just in case the employee wants to be in A's payroll also, but not get paid. How does that work.
What is the legal way in which A's H1 is not cancelled, and one can work with B, and then go back to A after sometime on same old A's H1.
Thank You,
Bobby.
Robert_Kumar:
One can have any number of H1B's but at any given time only one employer can employ you.
You have an approved H1B with company A
You have an approved H1B with company B
You can move over to B and then if you are not satisfied, you can move back to A. but remember you can move back to A only if (H1B with A is not expired and H1B with A is not withdrawn)
If A agrees to keep your H1B and you are on a payroll with some other company B/C/D, they are not obligated to withdraw the H1B.
GC is future employment - it does not mean that you should be working for them in the meanwhile. After you get your GC you are required/better off working for company A for atleast 6 mos.
Remember this is my understanding - Talk to an attorney if you need solid legal advice.
vjkypally
07-17 02:40 PM
Lol, too good dude!I did a spell check using word and found the following mistakes on hpandey's post.
Does it look anywhere that I am trying to lecture on the English language. (No question mark)
All I am trying to say is that the title of the thread which is only a few words long can be spell checked at least before posting it. Is it too much to ask for. (No question mark)
I understand if you write a full paragraph or a big post there are bound to be mistakes but in the title itself ... that is too much. (Too many ...)
Also there is a big difference between a typing mistake and being careless ! (Extra spacing before exclamation mark)
Proficiency in English language comes no where in the picture. Why not write the title in a word document and spell check it and post it. (No question mark)
I have enough faults of my own than to go around policing others but some things are too hard to digest.
Does it look anywhere that I am trying to lecture on the English language. (No question mark)
All I am trying to say is that the title of the thread which is only a few words long can be spell checked at least before posting it. Is it too much to ask for. (No question mark)
I understand if you write a full paragraph or a big post there are bound to be mistakes but in the title itself ... that is too much. (Too many ...)
Also there is a big difference between a typing mistake and being careless ! (Extra spacing before exclamation mark)
Proficiency in English language comes no where in the picture. Why not write the title in a word document and spell check it and post it. (No question mark)
I have enough faults of my own than to go around policing others but some things are too hard to digest.
Karthikthiru
08-15 07:15 PM
call1 : 08/13/08
IO told me that my name check is not clear.
call2:08/15/08
IO told that my name check is clear. But now she says my priority date as 08/31/2007 ( Which is basically the Notice date) and said as my priority date is not current it cannot be processed now.
My PD is 01/2006. Case transferred from NSC to TSC.
FYI - what is the PD on your approval notice of I-140. The reason why I am saying that they also had my PD incorrectly on my approval notice of my I-140. I just got it changed three weeks back. This is serious - sometimes USCIS assigns the ND/RD as the PD which is an issue. Hust double check it
IO told me that my name check is not clear.
call2:08/15/08
IO told that my name check is clear. But now she says my priority date as 08/31/2007 ( Which is basically the Notice date) and said as my priority date is not current it cannot be processed now.
My PD is 01/2006. Case transferred from NSC to TSC.
FYI - what is the PD on your approval notice of I-140. The reason why I am saying that they also had my PD incorrectly on my approval notice of my I-140. I just got it changed three weeks back. This is serious - sometimes USCIS assigns the ND/RD as the PD which is an issue. Hust double check it