whyregisteration
12-19 08:39 PM
Thanks to lazycis for his/her kind information about mutiple 485
My pending 485 based on approved NIW140 is sleeping at SRC, but EB1-140 was approved in NSC, my living region belongs to NSC, therefore should I submit a relink request to NSC:confused: Any idea? thanks in advance.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all experts here :):)
My pending 485 based on approved NIW140 is sleeping at SRC, but EB1-140 was approved in NSC, my living region belongs to NSC, therefore should I submit a relink request to NSC:confused: Any idea? thanks in advance.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all experts here :):)
freedom_fighter
01-14 07:21 PM
anyidea how long does it take for the actual card to come, after getting the CPO email. I checked my status says, welcome notice sent something.
kondur_007
07-30 07:32 PM
I am stuck out side of US for my name check for last 9 months when I applied for my H-1. I have approved I 140. is there any way I can file my I 1485 and Advance parole or any thing to get back into US.
Some one has told me that I can use consular processing but have no idea about that.
Please help me and let me know what are possible options for me to return to US.
I am sorry for what happened to you my friend.
This is what I would suggest:
1. Contact your attorney in US and consider options.
2. File for CP if your PD is current. Basically, it means that USCIS will send your I 140 to DOS to assign to your consulate who will then process your GC (by interviewing just like they do with any other visa). Catch 22 in your situation is that they need name check even for CP. So doing CP may not be a whole lot helpful in getting to US earlier; however, it is something you can do and if your name check is cleared, you might get GC sooner and you will not have to file AOS. Your attorney would be further able to guide you about this.
3. If you have contacts in US, ask them to contact local congressman and that may be helpful to get the name check done sooner.
Good Luck.
(PS: Just like it says in above post, you can not apply 485 while outside US)
Some one has told me that I can use consular processing but have no idea about that.
Please help me and let me know what are possible options for me to return to US.
I am sorry for what happened to you my friend.
This is what I would suggest:
1. Contact your attorney in US and consider options.
2. File for CP if your PD is current. Basically, it means that USCIS will send your I 140 to DOS to assign to your consulate who will then process your GC (by interviewing just like they do with any other visa). Catch 22 in your situation is that they need name check even for CP. So doing CP may not be a whole lot helpful in getting to US earlier; however, it is something you can do and if your name check is cleared, you might get GC sooner and you will not have to file AOS. Your attorney would be further able to guide you about this.
3. If you have contacts in US, ask them to contact local congressman and that may be helpful to get the name check done sooner.
Good Luck.
(PS: Just like it says in above post, you can not apply 485 while outside US)
TomPlate
02-03 05:04 PM
Can you please let me know anyone. I had this doubt because one of my friend is saying,
During PORT OF ENTRY AP can only be used with EAD. Expired EAD will be an issue here.
Even if you do not use EAD and in H1.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW:confused:
During PORT OF ENTRY AP can only be used with EAD. Expired EAD will be an issue here.
Even if you do not use EAD and in H1.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW:confused:
more...
pbojja
03-31 11:36 AM
can you please let us know which service center you filed and what was your notice date in i485 recipt notice
Thank you all
TSC Receipt date is July 2007 ,Notice date is Oct 2007 . By the way I contacted local congressman office when I was current in Jan 2009 , they helped me big time so TSC started processing my file .
Thank you all
TSC Receipt date is July 2007 ,Notice date is Oct 2007 . By the way I contacted local congressman office when I was current in Jan 2009 , they helped me big time so TSC started processing my file .
dixie
11-06 04:43 PM
It doesnt matter whether the clients of the employer are for-profit or not (obviously). The only thing relevant is whether or not the organization for which your wife will work is classified as not-for-profit.
My Wife, if everything works out, will be working in a Finance related field for a Health Care related service providing financial services to many many hospitals.
I was wondering if I could use the Heallth care angle for the H1b Non Cap
My Wife, if everything works out, will be working in a Finance related field for a Health Care related service providing financial services to many many hospitals.
I was wondering if I could use the Heallth care angle for the H1b Non Cap
more...
shankar_thanu
08-03 10:01 PM
I applied in July, RD Jul 2nd. TSC
Havent seen any changes on my case status. my name check hasn't cleared yet. I called and spoke with an IO, she said name check wasnt cleared, wouldnt tell how long its been with FBI. I asked about the 180 day name check rule and she said it doesnt matter they still woudnt work on the case till NC was cleared.
Havent seen any changes on my case status. my name check hasn't cleared yet. I called and spoke with an IO, she said name check wasnt cleared, wouldnt tell how long its been with FBI. I asked about the 180 day name check rule and she said it doesnt matter they still woudnt work on the case till NC was cleared.
geniousatwork
09-22 08:56 PM
Tsc
which service center tsc or nsc????
which service center tsc or nsc????
more...
GCDelay
11-30 11:38 AM
xxxx
txh1b
08-18 02:48 PM
now this is weird... aside from the poster's main question: why does uscis want proof of *continuous employment* since the poster filed for 485? all they should care about is the future job... isnt that right? why do they want employment history?
willIWill, can you please post the exact wording on your RFE regarding that point?
It is not. It is very much relevant to the case as he has not added the spouse to the I485. If the person has not been continuously maintaining the non immigrant visa status, the spouse is out of status as the 485 has not been filed and is not eligible to hold H4 status.
Also, if the person has travelled on as a parolee, USCIS may be interested in that as well. You never know what the IO is getting into when they issue the RFE. Do not judge or give the OP a feeling that the RFE is irrelevant. It is, in many ways.
willIWill, can you please post the exact wording on your RFE regarding that point?
It is not. It is very much relevant to the case as he has not added the spouse to the I485. If the person has not been continuously maintaining the non immigrant visa status, the spouse is out of status as the 485 has not been filed and is not eligible to hold H4 status.
Also, if the person has travelled on as a parolee, USCIS may be interested in that as well. You never know what the IO is getting into when they issue the RFE. Do not judge or give the OP a feeling that the RFE is irrelevant. It is, in many ways.
more...
waitforgc1
05-07 12:08 PM
I think if iam not wrong its not based of the priority date or anything else. Its just random
kartikiran
05-06 03:55 PM
ganguteli,
there was a donor conference call a couple of weeks back, in which aman, pappu etc participated.
your thoughts of rally was discussed, but unfortunately the numbers are not quiet adding up as it did during the July 2007 fiasco.
As per what I learned from that discussion was when IV sees the "thousands" as per your quote they are willing to support the rally idea. Otherwise, it may not make the noise as we expect it to do.
Yes, I agree with IV core's line of thought in the "rally" idea. I too wish we can do a "rally" but...:-(
If people really want to do something, then how about we organize a rally in DC and show up in thousands?
Then everyone will know you and you do not need to go to meetings just to show your faces and expect that someone will have mercy on us and think about us next time.
there was a donor conference call a couple of weeks back, in which aman, pappu etc participated.
your thoughts of rally was discussed, but unfortunately the numbers are not quiet adding up as it did during the July 2007 fiasco.
As per what I learned from that discussion was when IV sees the "thousands" as per your quote they are willing to support the rally idea. Otherwise, it may not make the noise as we expect it to do.
Yes, I agree with IV core's line of thought in the "rally" idea. I too wish we can do a "rally" but...:-(
If people really want to do something, then how about we organize a rally in DC and show up in thousands?
Then everyone will know you and you do not need to go to meetings just to show your faces and expect that someone will have mercy on us and think about us next time.
more...
dvb
07-28 02:24 PM
Your Payments When You Are Outside The United States (http://ssa.gov/international/countrylist4.htm) ??? What does this mean .... looks like you can claim benefits.
sunny26
04-26 09:48 PM
I traveled recently from DTW to india using lufthansa. Allowed two baggage for me and 2 for my son(4yrs old) without any problem
more...
GCard_Dream
06-18 06:09 PM
Last time I checked EB3 for ROW was "U". Did you somehow get "U" confused with "C" or have you stopped looking at visa bulletins?
But, I'm not sure if EB row would care that much...since their dates are ALWAYS current?
But, I'm not sure if EB row would care that much...since their dates are ALWAYS current?
Rb_newsletter
01-07 08:36 PM
I found this article in imminfo.com. I could not understand the below line in legal sense. Does this line means that delayed registration of birth is not acceptable?
ImmInfo Newsletter: Required Supporting Documents: Birth Records (http://imminfo.com/News/Newsletter/2010-1/required_supporting_documents_birth_record.html)
Delayed birth certificates are also not considered as conclusive evidence of birth.
ImmInfo Newsletter: Required Supporting Documents: Birth Records (http://imminfo.com/News/Newsletter/2010-1/required_supporting_documents_birth_record.html)
Delayed birth certificates are also not considered as conclusive evidence of birth.
more...
glen
05-18 01:46 PM
Absolutely great. Love to be a part of IV.:)
Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
willgetgc2005
07-31 05:39 PM
gg_ny/others,
1) My h1 and my wife's h4 are pending extensiosn with CSC. Will her H4 extension adjuducation be affected by her converting to EAD ?
2) gg-ny, can you eloborate on this please?
(have to file new I9 and specify how you could work) . Do you mean she has to file for a new I-94 ? How to go abaout doing it.
Thanks for your responses.
Sendil
1) My h1 and my wife's h4 are pending extensiosn with CSC. Will her H4 extension adjuducation be affected by her converting to EAD ?
2) gg-ny, can you eloborate on this please?
(have to file new I9 and specify how you could work) . Do you mean she has to file for a new I-94 ? How to go abaout doing it.
Thanks for your responses.
Sendil
frostrated
06-21 01:55 PM
By law: If you take Unemployment benefits => you have become public charge. If you become public charge => you broke AOS condition. Which requires you to be never be public charge. On top of that if you were still on H1b then that would have expired with you loosing your job. So that makes it a good case for removal proceedings if your case gets an audit (which is very likely).
Lookup a similar thread(removal proceedings) in IV.
Get legal help before making a decision like that.
taking unemployment benefit is not public charge. while working, you pay into the unemployment. everytime you work, you and your employer pay for umemployment insurance which is managed by the US government. But to be eligible for umeployment insurance benefit, you have to be a legal permanent resident or a citizen.
Lookup a similar thread(removal proceedings) in IV.
Get legal help before making a decision like that.
taking unemployment benefit is not public charge. while working, you pay into the unemployment. everytime you work, you and your employer pay for umemployment insurance which is managed by the US government. But to be eligible for umeployment insurance benefit, you have to be a legal permanent resident or a citizen.
mchundi
07-28 10:17 AM
Thanks for the reply Mchundi, however, if i CHANGE the job does the rule for a 3 year H1B STILL apply? I mean how does the 3 year thing apply to me? I only have a little over 1 year on this current H1 (out of SIX years).
h1b-tristate,
All this was discussed a few times in this thread and other threads as well.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1216
--MC
h1b-tristate,
All this was discussed a few times in this thread and other threads as well.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1216
--MC