ramesh10
06-15 07:20 PM
Franklin,
I had OPT in 2003 , so should i be using that A# and should i mention YES for question, have you ever applied for employment authorization with USCIS
in G325A,
should i need to mention my part time jobs i worked while on F1 visa (i did not mention anything during 140)
I had OPT in 2003 , so should i be using that A# and should i mention YES for question, have you ever applied for employment authorization with USCIS
in G325A,
should i need to mention my part time jobs i worked while on F1 visa (i did not mention anything during 140)
wallpaper i love you friend quotes. day)
saileshdude
12-03 03:13 PM
Does anyone knows if Person eligible for AC21 porting is eligible for unemployment benefit?
I would not recommend , in fact I would say DO NOT even attempt to thing about these benefits while your AOS is still pending.
I would not recommend , in fact I would say DO NOT even attempt to thing about these benefits while your AOS is still pending.
thamizhan
07-17 10:46 PM
any news about the unused visa numbers to be recalled ?
2011 friendship quotes and poems.
sri1309
03-25 05:12 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/OpenForQuestions/
Press view questions and search for immigration. You need to complete a simple registration to vote for existing questions or ask a new questions. This is a chance to force President to answer direct questions.
Very nice. I just watched the video.. Feels like Obama is sitting in front of me asking me what my problem is.. Never had this opportunity before right.. He asks us to use internet to tell him what our problems are and also allows us to vote. Though we are not Citizens. He is not asking us to register using SSN or anything and filtering only Citizens.. Its open to all.. Go and tell your problem and also DO vote on relevant topics.
Since its related to economy, related your GC problem to a solution on how you can make a difference to economy by jobs and by buying houses.. Please do it.
Lets this thread be bumped..
Obama wants to answer us Thursday. Just two days from now.. I just did it..
Press view questions and search for immigration. You need to complete a simple registration to vote for existing questions or ask a new questions. This is a chance to force President to answer direct questions.
Very nice. I just watched the video.. Feels like Obama is sitting in front of me asking me what my problem is.. Never had this opportunity before right.. He asks us to use internet to tell him what our problems are and also allows us to vote. Though we are not Citizens. He is not asking us to register using SSN or anything and filtering only Citizens.. Its open to all.. Go and tell your problem and also DO vote on relevant topics.
Since its related to economy, related your GC problem to a solution on how you can make a difference to economy by jobs and by buying houses.. Please do it.
Lets this thread be bumped..
Obama wants to answer us Thursday. Just two days from now.. I just did it..
more...
priti8888
01-08 03:55 PM
Is there any relation between biometrics and the final green card approval time?
I have got annecdotal info from several friends. With one exception (because of a name check process that has taken over two years!) most people receive the green card around three months after the biometrics.
Is that the case?
not true. You can be approved only if your PD is current.
I have got annecdotal info from several friends. With one exception (because of a name check process that has taken over two years!) most people receive the green card around three months after the biometrics.
Is that the case?
not true. You can be approved only if your PD is current.
dealsnet
02-27 09:33 AM
That is why US consulate is not giving visit visa to Indian youths 15-35 years of age.
They know, these guys will come here and work then marry a US citizen to remain legal.
So need legal entry is required, then remain illegal, without any problem, just marry a US citizen.
This is giving a problem to deserving visit visa applicants.
Thank you. I was going to reply to Dealsnet and state that, but you beat me to it.
On a side note, i was going to add that out of status itself does not determine the start of the clock, for the 3 and 10 year bans, .. that would be "unlawful stay" determined from the expiration of the date on the I-94 OR an administrative determination of unlawful stay based on when they discovered the out of status situation. However, for the above purposes [GC based on marriage], this point is moot.
They know, these guys will come here and work then marry a US citizen to remain legal.
So need legal entry is required, then remain illegal, without any problem, just marry a US citizen.
This is giving a problem to deserving visit visa applicants.
Thank you. I was going to reply to Dealsnet and state that, but you beat me to it.
On a side note, i was going to add that out of status itself does not determine the start of the clock, for the 3 and 10 year bans, .. that would be "unlawful stay" determined from the expiration of the date on the I-94 OR an administrative determination of unlawful stay based on when they discovered the out of status situation. However, for the above purposes [GC based on marriage], this point is moot.
more...
indiancitizen77
09-27 09:00 PM
My lawyer had also said the same thing. You can get an extension of H based on your husbands approved I140.
Njdude26, Was the H extension your attorney mentioned for H4 or H1. Did the attorney elaborate any precedents for H1 extensions based on an approved I-140? Thanks
Njdude26, Was the H extension your attorney mentioned for H4 or H1. Did the attorney elaborate any precedents for H1 extensions based on an approved I-140? Thanks
2010 short friend quotes poems
TheCanadian
10-22 06:38 PM
You eat dinner on tables, so why not use them for websites?
You don't use DIVs to build houses, so why use them for websites?
You don't use DIVs to build houses, so why use them for websites?
more...
bekugc
05-07 11:29 AM
coolest_me;
a friend of mine had got same RFE as u back in 2005. he had gotten all the vaccinations properly, yet this came. it was just a error on the behalf of the surgeon perhaps. My friend had the doctor redispatch the document in reply to the RFE and it got accepted. the doctor did not charge any extra fee since he was at fault. this cud be just a rare /routine paperwork mistake. infact my friends wife dint get this problem, only the primary appln had this mistake.
if u personally donot know the doctor, then take any receipt or printout from past visit to remind him that ur on his file and ur vaccination history ( if completed in thefirst place) can be located. you dont have to worry much according to me. also if ur PD is current, then its good news, ur appln is sorta woken up and once u reply to rfe u cud see +ve movement.
a friend of mine had got same RFE as u back in 2005. he had gotten all the vaccinations properly, yet this came. it was just a error on the behalf of the surgeon perhaps. My friend had the doctor redispatch the document in reply to the RFE and it got accepted. the doctor did not charge any extra fee since he was at fault. this cud be just a rare /routine paperwork mistake. infact my friends wife dint get this problem, only the primary appln had this mistake.
if u personally donot know the doctor, then take any receipt or printout from past visit to remind him that ur on his file and ur vaccination history ( if completed in thefirst place) can be located. you dont have to worry much according to me. also if ur PD is current, then its good news, ur appln is sorta woken up and once u reply to rfe u cud see +ve movement.
hair love you friend quotes. i love
gcboy442
10-08 08:25 AM
sg72
My spouse EAD and AP were approved on Sept 13th , Mine is still pending......Don't know what to do .....I am the primary applicant....
My spouse EAD and AP were approved on Sept 13th , Mine is still pending......Don't know what to do .....I am the primary applicant....
more...
PD_Dec2002
07-07 10:21 PM
are you talking about filing LC for ad sent out already that I said ? or ...
Showing 1 year of work experience when you don't really have that experience. You can be asked for pay stubs, employer verification letters, etc. for I-140 and maybe even for I-485. For all you know, you might have a smooth ride all the way to your GC. But as I wrote earlier, there's no guarantee when your past can come back to haunt you.
Thanks,
Jayant
Showing 1 year of work experience when you don't really have that experience. You can be asked for pay stubs, employer verification letters, etc. for I-140 and maybe even for I-485. For all you know, you might have a smooth ride all the way to your GC. But as I wrote earlier, there's no guarantee when your past can come back to haunt you.
Thanks,
Jayant
hot love and friendship poems.
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
house quotes on love and friendship.
nixstor
06-28 10:55 PM
I will look at the I-485 application on Saturday and will send all my applications to the center listed for EB applications. As of now it is NSC.
tattoo i love you forever poems. i
nixstor
09-17 11:55 AM
I agree with the confusion part of your post. How ever, the timing should be good for a name change and I am sure atleast it will have some people say "hey, look these guys are waiting in line". But if 100 out of 100 people here are because of issues being faced by EB issues, I dont see anything wrong in associating ourselves to that cause. In fact, if any one comes to the website and reads for a minute its crystal clear that we are trying to alleviate the situation for EB applicants. In the visa bulletin, I see EB and FB categories. Am I missing some categories in Legal Immigration? (excluding getting enlisted)
more...
pictures love you best friend quotes.
gc_chahiye
11-04 11:26 PM
Situation - During the month of July, I filed my 485 when all categories were current. Got my receipt too. Missed wife's application because her papers were not ready. Now priority dates have retrogressed again.
Saving grace - Our H1/H4 are in order with many long years left on them.
Question - Can I file my wife 485 now as a dependent, even though "my" PD is not current yet. The core point is that, does the concept of PD applies to the dependent 485 applications too?
unfortunately under current laws/regulations the dependent can only file when the PD of the primary applicant is current. So you'll need to wait for your PD to become current again to be able to file your wife's petition.
Saving grace - Our H1/H4 are in order with many long years left on them.
Question - Can I file my wife 485 now as a dependent, even though "my" PD is not current yet. The core point is that, does the concept of PD applies to the dependent 485 applications too?
unfortunately under current laws/regulations the dependent can only file when the PD of the primary applicant is current. So you'll need to wait for your PD to become current again to be able to file your wife's petition.
dresses hair rhyming love poems. love
gc2
12-03 03:15 PM
why would you ask about unemployment for a GC application based on employment category or so i assume.
more...
makeup Love friendship quotes sayings
ski_dude12
01-07 10:08 PM
lol @ Bangalored
the existing jobs have been bangalored...
the existing jobs have been bangalored...
girlfriend friendship poems. love
ca_immigrant
02-11 12:08 PM
Hi Folks,
What is the fastest and perhaps a little economic way to get documents over to chennai (Tamil Nadu) or Calicut (Kerala) from here in San Jose, ca.
USPS has this service called Express Mail ($27.95) or Priority Mail ($12.95)
I guess USPS is claiming 6-10 days (guess no gurantee) to india.
Other couriers seems to be $70+ (FedEx, UPS, DHL)..
Anyone has had good luck with USPS ? or do you suggest the couriers mentioned above ?
Need to get docs for an interview for parents on Feb 26th in Chennai...
Thanks in Advance for your reply !!
What is the fastest and perhaps a little economic way to get documents over to chennai (Tamil Nadu) or Calicut (Kerala) from here in San Jose, ca.
USPS has this service called Express Mail ($27.95) or Priority Mail ($12.95)
I guess USPS is claiming 6-10 days (guess no gurantee) to india.
Other couriers seems to be $70+ (FedEx, UPS, DHL)..
Anyone has had good luck with USPS ? or do you suggest the couriers mentioned above ?
Need to get docs for an interview for parents on Feb 26th in Chennai...
Thanks in Advance for your reply !!
hairstyles sad friendship quotes that
looneytunezez
08-19 08:04 PM
i would recommend renewing your passport here in the US before travelling as they recommend over 6 month validity.
Usually takes 2-3 weeks, but you might be able to emergency rush processing as you are already travelling.
when you get ur new passport, it will say that your h1b stamping is still valid, so you can present both passports on POE.
hth,
LT
Usually takes 2-3 weeks, but you might be able to emergency rush processing as you are already travelling.
when you get ur new passport, it will say that your h1b stamping is still valid, so you can present both passports on POE.
hth,
LT
kaizersoze
07-17 06:24 PM
I pledge to contribute $200 once I get the receipt notice
C'mon dude...dates are current. You can file. isn't that enough for you to be happy about. Why do you want to wait till you get receipt notice ?
You are thankful to IV now. Contribute to IV now.
When u get ur receipt, u r thankful to USCIS for managing to open you packet and enter your information into the system :D
C'mon dude...dates are current. You can file. isn't that enough for you to be happy about. Why do you want to wait till you get receipt notice ?
You are thankful to IV now. Contribute to IV now.
When u get ur receipt, u r thankful to USCIS for managing to open you packet and enter your information into the system :D
Sage_of_Fire
01-02 09:56 PM
Sure, feel free to. As long as it is something that you did (no 3rd party code, etc.), then it is all good.
:)
Okay, there's my answer. Nice two-birds-one-stone answer, Kirupa!
:)
Okay, there's my answer. Nice two-birds-one-stone answer, Kirupa!
No comments:
Post a Comment