neoklaus
10-23 08:10 PM
Two friends of mine were in the same situation.
In both cases dependent children were approved first, then primary applicant
(in one case in a 6 month after his dependent)
In both cases dependent children were approved first, then primary applicant
(in one case in a 6 month after his dependent)
wallpaper who is angelina jolie mother
Blog Feeds
11-30 03:00 AM
"In heated, election-year politics, the facts often take a backseat to campaign rhetoric - particularly when it comes to immigration. In an effort to defend the facts and provide basic answers to the most commonly asked questions, the Immigration Policy Center releases �Giving the Facts a Fighting Chance: Answers to the Toughest Immigration Questions (http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Giving_Facts_a_Fighting_Chance_100710.pdf).� (PDF version)"
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2010/10/16/giving-facts-a-fighting-chance-answers-to-the-toughest-immigration-questions--via-the-immigration-policy-center.aspx?ref=rss)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2010/10/16/giving-facts-a-fighting-chance-answers-to-the-toughest-immigration-questions--via-the-immigration-policy-center.aspx?ref=rss)
ashatara78
09-14 01:06 PM
We got something similar. I have seen other posts in the forums but can't find them now. I would suggest you go for the fingerprints/biometrics and be done with it. Don't give them an excuse to actually implement "if you don't show up, your application will be considered abandoned".
2011 Name : Angelina Jolie
delhirocks
06-29 11:47 AM
Anyone know of any good GC lawyers in Chicago Land area...
I need a desi lawyer who knows that PD is portable...
please pass on the info..if you know of any!!!
rags99@hotmail.com
Raghu
Though I can't answer your question, Isn't USCIS, in the process of disabling PD portability?
I need a desi lawyer who knows that PD is portable...
please pass on the info..if you know of any!!!
rags99@hotmail.com
Raghu
Though I can't answer your question, Isn't USCIS, in the process of disabling PD portability?
more...
vandanaverdia
11-14 08:05 PM
Have YOU made a difference?????
Stand up & be heard!!!
Stand up & be heard!!!
Jaime
04-06 01:45 AM
Hello gang! I have a quick question! Has anyone had issues with the prevailing wage being too low? The attorneys requested the prevailing wage from the SWA and it came back really high twice, so they then submitted a private wage survey that my company conducted with a reputable firm and it was rejected. The attorneys have said that they will now appeal the case directly to DOL. Has anyone had to go through this? If so, how long does appealing to DOL take? And, any info on success rate with the appeals to DOL?
Any info would be extremely appreciated! Thanks in advance guys!! :)
Any info would be extremely appreciated! Thanks in advance guys!! :)
more...
saravanaraj.sathya
07-30 03:32 PM
You will be able to move to a different employer with better job with better pay. If you are happy with ur current job still it cant proect you if ur current employer gors out of business and fires you.
What are the benefits? Please explain.
What are the benefits? Please explain.
2010 Olympias (Angelina Jolie)
vicky007
06-06 03:16 PM
Is it possible? Pro-active Finger-Printing without appointment letter.
I have done my FP on March 1st 2005, since the validity is now expired, i called the VSC to enquire when and if i will be getting another FP notice soon.She told me that i can contact the local ASC(Application service centre) and go for the Finger-printing without any formal Notice/Appointment Letter.
Has anybody done this? ie has anybody done Pro-active finger-printing without appointment letter? Please reply.
Regards.
I have done my FP on March 1st 2005, since the validity is now expired, i called the VSC to enquire when and if i will be getting another FP notice soon.She told me that i can contact the local ASC(Application service centre) and go for the Finger-printing without any formal Notice/Appointment Letter.
Has anybody done this? ie has anybody done Pro-active finger-printing without appointment letter? Please reply.
Regards.
more...
gimme_GC2006
07-09 09:09 PM
Same info on Murthy site..looks like we have to wait for details
NewsFlash! AILF's Legal Action Center Seeks Plaintiffs on EB Visa Number Availability Issue. More details on this soon . . . .
Posted Jul 09, 2007
NewsFlash! AILF's Legal Action Center Seeks Plaintiffs on EB Visa Number Availability Issue. More details on this soon . . . .
Posted Jul 09, 2007
hair Angelina Jolie at the Oscars
vegasbaby
05-04 07:16 PM
Hi,
Firstly, I would like to apologize for my ignorance & starting a new thread on this topic. I have some questions on porting & hopefully you learned people would help me on this.
1. When is the actual PD porting done? Is it done at I-140 stage?
2. I have I-485 filed in EB3-I. Now, I do my labor in EB2 & then at the time of applying I-140 do I tell USCIS that I have an old EB3 with PD of Nov 2004?
3. Say I do that, will USCIS automatically change my category on my pending I-485?
4. When I filed my I-485 in EB3, I was single. Now I am married. If USCIS automatically adjudicates my pending application, I believe, I will be in soup since my wife is not included in that. So should I (or the attorney) tell them NOT to adjust category on my pending I-485 instead I file a new I-485 under EB2?
Thanks
Firstly, I would like to apologize for my ignorance & starting a new thread on this topic. I have some questions on porting & hopefully you learned people would help me on this.
1. When is the actual PD porting done? Is it done at I-140 stage?
2. I have I-485 filed in EB3-I. Now, I do my labor in EB2 & then at the time of applying I-140 do I tell USCIS that I have an old EB3 with PD of Nov 2004?
3. Say I do that, will USCIS automatically change my category on my pending I-485?
4. When I filed my I-485 in EB3, I was single. Now I am married. If USCIS automatically adjudicates my pending application, I believe, I will be in soup since my wife is not included in that. So should I (or the attorney) tell them NOT to adjust category on my pending I-485 instead I file a new I-485 under EB2?
Thanks
more...
Blog Feeds
06-09 02:10 PM
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVILHGq67_GZ2LrYTAo739JV5DVDrYCpCRwGwYLGdH5Dxzl0S2c2hbvJAwlskiAn_gQyTZZHrRHgWh2qSrEqZ8mrYz5-KjywnWw4k7Hq-QF4IqX0Dn_ZU3Y4wY_NxgEjI-1fKVxnPEjXp9/s200/abacus.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVILHGq67_GZ2LrYTAo739JV5DVDrYCpCRwGwYLGdH5Dxzl0S2c2hbvJAwlskiAn_gQyTZZHrRHgWh2qSrEqZ8mrYz5-KjywnWw4k7Hq-QF4IqX0Dn_ZU3Y4wY_NxgEjI-1fKVxnPEjXp9/s1600-h/abacus.jpg)
USCIS updated the H-1B cap count for Fiscal Year 2010. It now has 45,700 cases against the regular (non-Master's) H-1B cap. For more information, see the previous blog posts here (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/04/h-1b-count-now-at-44000.html)and here (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/04/h-1b-cap-may-not-have-been-reached-yet.html)
http://immigrationvoice.org//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-5975583509495150782?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/h-1b-cap-count-update-45700-now-used.html)
USCIS updated the H-1B cap count for Fiscal Year 2010. It now has 45,700 cases against the regular (non-Master's) H-1B cap. For more information, see the previous blog posts here (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/04/h-1b-count-now-at-44000.html)and here (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/04/h-1b-cap-may-not-have-been-reached-yet.html)
http://immigrationvoice.org//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-5975583509495150782?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/h-1b-cap-count-update-45700-now-used.html)
hot Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie
insbaby
08-11 03:54 PM
90 days window period for H1 Stamping before the validity starts.
10 days window period to enter US (Use when it is absolutely necessary, if not, safe enter on the date it starts are after that)
10 days window period to enter US (Use when it is absolutely necessary, if not, safe enter on the date it starts are after that)
more...
house Elise and Scarlet#39;s mother.
kitoko
05-27 12:22 PM
I am currently working for company A under H1B visa. Company B recently bought all of Company A�s Assets. I am still working for Company A (doing clean-up work) but will be laid off shortly (within a month). Company B offered me a similar position.
I read that since Company B bought all the assets and runs a similar business they would be considered as "successor of interest�, therefore, we would not need to file a transfer with USCIS and a simple letter would be sufficient.
How does that work exactly? Can I travel with my old visa and the letter? What happens if later on Company A is dissolved? Cancel the visa?
I think that Company B is ready to sponsor me for the Green Card. I�m not sure that they would be ready to pay for the fees for the transfer AND the green card now. I would really like to start the Green card process as soon as possible since it takes so long. I understand that it might be better to file a transfer to be on the safe side but if I can save some of the fees it would be great.
Thank you so much for your feedback.
I read that since Company B bought all the assets and runs a similar business they would be considered as "successor of interest�, therefore, we would not need to file a transfer with USCIS and a simple letter would be sufficient.
How does that work exactly? Can I travel with my old visa and the letter? What happens if later on Company A is dissolved? Cancel the visa?
I think that Company B is ready to sponsor me for the Green Card. I�m not sure that they would be ready to pay for the fees for the transfer AND the green card now. I would really like to start the Green card process as soon as possible since it takes so long. I understand that it might be better to file a transfer to be on the safe side but if I can save some of the fees it would be great.
Thank you so much for your feedback.
tattoo Filed Under: Angelina Jolie
immi2006
10-09 12:38 AM
Folks,
I filed concurrently I 140 and I 485.
My application has been transferred from California to Nebraska.
I wanted to check if folks have seen any updates on thier cases.
I noticed on the website, for my I 140 status it does not show any date etc, it simply says case transferred to a USCIS office. For some folks it shows on a specific date..XX XXXX we recd your case at this office..
Can we all share our data under this thread for I 140 filing with 485 on July 2.
I filed concurrently I 140 and I 485.
My application has been transferred from California to Nebraska.
I wanted to check if folks have seen any updates on thier cases.
I noticed on the website, for my I 140 status it does not show any date etc, it simply says case transferred to a USCIS office. For some folks it shows on a specific date..XX XXXX we recd your case at this office..
Can we all share our data under this thread for I 140 filing with 485 on July 2.
more...
pictures New Angelina Jolie Photos
Macaca
06-22 06:55 AM
Senate Passes Energy Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062101026.html?hpid=topnews) Democrats Prevail; Mileage Standard Would Be Raised By Sholnn Freeman (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/sholnn+freeman/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, June 22, 2007
The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters.
After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.
The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.
Democratic leaders said they hoped the legislation will be a rallying point for voters concerned about national security, climate change and near-record gasoline prices.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels and for the first time in decades significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader.
Final passage of the bill capped an otherwise rancorous week in which senators grappled over energy policy. Early yesterday, Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction after a $32 billion package of energy tax cuts was blocked on a procedural vote. But late in the day, a bipartisan group of senators came together to break an impasse on vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would require cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicle to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Earlier in the week, the Senate rejected additions to the bill that would have pumped billions of federal dollars into efforts to ramp up production of a coal-based fuel for cars and trucks, which proponents had called an important alternative to petroleum. Additionally, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) failed to win approval for a proposal to allow exploration for natural gas off the Virginia coast, and Republicans blocked an effort to require that more of the nation's electricity come for renewable sources.
The passage of fuel-efficiency measure was viewed as a major triumph for the Democrats, particularly the last-minute dealmaking that enabled passage of the comprehensive change to mileage standards.
The politics of fuel economy had gone virtually unchanged since Congress passed the first nationwide standards -- known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE -- in 1975. The last time the full Senate tried to boost fuel-economy standards was in 2002, and the effort was defeated handily.
The auto industry successfully argued that large increases in efficiency standards would force them to build smaller vehicles -- the kind American consumers won't buy. In recent years, however, low mileage standards left U.S. automakers with little market defense against higher-mileage Japanese cars, particularly at times when gas prices soar. As consumers have moved gradually from SUVs and pickup trucks to smaller vehicles, Detroit's Big Three automakers have gone through a painful restructuring period.
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
The fuel-efficiency language in the Senate energy package originally had coupled a 35 mile-per-gallon standard with a requirement of 4 percent annual increases for the decade after 2020. A group led by the two Michigan senators -- Democrats Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow -- and Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had sought instead to gain support for an amendment that would impose less-stringent standards while satisfying growing demands for change in the fuel-efficiency laws.
In the compromise-- shepherded principally by Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) -- lawmakers dropped a provision that would have mandated additional 4 percent annual increases in fuel efficiency between 2021 and 2030. They also softened a provision that would have required all automakers to build substantially more vehicles that can run on ethanol and other biofuels.
After the fuel-economy vote, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), another architect of the compromise, said the nation's desire to be less dependent on foreign oil would be a "hopeless journey" without more efficient cars and trucks.
"Now, in our vehicles, we have better cup-holders, we have keyless entry, we have better music systems, we have heated seats," Dorgan said. "It is time that we expect more automobile efficiency."
Senators who had previously been friendly to the auto industry said they were changing their position after growing weary of the industry's position. "I listened and I listened, year after year," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said on the Senate floor. "And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change."
In the end, Senate aides said, Levin's group did not have the votes.
Democratic leaders said the bipartisan backing of the compromise worked out in the Senate would help build support in the House when that chamber House begins debate on its energy package. Already, Rep. John D. Dingell, (D-Mich.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have battled over fuel economy.
In another Senate battle yesterday, Democrats lost a fight against oil companies when Republicans blocked a $32 billion tax package that would have poured money into alternative fuel projects by raising taxes on oil and gas companies.
President Bush, meanwhile, visited the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens, Ala., where he touted nuclear power as a clean, dependable and safe source of electricity and promised to streamline the federal regulatory process to ease the way for the construction of new plants.
"Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases," Bush said. "If you're interested in cleaning up the air you ought to be for nuclear power."
Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher in Athens, Ala., contributed to this report.
The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters.
After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.
The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.
Democratic leaders said they hoped the legislation will be a rallying point for voters concerned about national security, climate change and near-record gasoline prices.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels and for the first time in decades significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader.
Final passage of the bill capped an otherwise rancorous week in which senators grappled over energy policy. Early yesterday, Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction after a $32 billion package of energy tax cuts was blocked on a procedural vote. But late in the day, a bipartisan group of senators came together to break an impasse on vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would require cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicle to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Earlier in the week, the Senate rejected additions to the bill that would have pumped billions of federal dollars into efforts to ramp up production of a coal-based fuel for cars and trucks, which proponents had called an important alternative to petroleum. Additionally, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) failed to win approval for a proposal to allow exploration for natural gas off the Virginia coast, and Republicans blocked an effort to require that more of the nation's electricity come for renewable sources.
The passage of fuel-efficiency measure was viewed as a major triumph for the Democrats, particularly the last-minute dealmaking that enabled passage of the comprehensive change to mileage standards.
The politics of fuel economy had gone virtually unchanged since Congress passed the first nationwide standards -- known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE -- in 1975. The last time the full Senate tried to boost fuel-economy standards was in 2002, and the effort was defeated handily.
The auto industry successfully argued that large increases in efficiency standards would force them to build smaller vehicles -- the kind American consumers won't buy. In recent years, however, low mileage standards left U.S. automakers with little market defense against higher-mileage Japanese cars, particularly at times when gas prices soar. As consumers have moved gradually from SUVs and pickup trucks to smaller vehicles, Detroit's Big Three automakers have gone through a painful restructuring period.
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
The fuel-efficiency language in the Senate energy package originally had coupled a 35 mile-per-gallon standard with a requirement of 4 percent annual increases for the decade after 2020. A group led by the two Michigan senators -- Democrats Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow -- and Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had sought instead to gain support for an amendment that would impose less-stringent standards while satisfying growing demands for change in the fuel-efficiency laws.
In the compromise-- shepherded principally by Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) -- lawmakers dropped a provision that would have mandated additional 4 percent annual increases in fuel efficiency between 2021 and 2030. They also softened a provision that would have required all automakers to build substantially more vehicles that can run on ethanol and other biofuels.
After the fuel-economy vote, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), another architect of the compromise, said the nation's desire to be less dependent on foreign oil would be a "hopeless journey" without more efficient cars and trucks.
"Now, in our vehicles, we have better cup-holders, we have keyless entry, we have better music systems, we have heated seats," Dorgan said. "It is time that we expect more automobile efficiency."
Senators who had previously been friendly to the auto industry said they were changing their position after growing weary of the industry's position. "I listened and I listened, year after year," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said on the Senate floor. "And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change."
In the end, Senate aides said, Levin's group did not have the votes.
Democratic leaders said the bipartisan backing of the compromise worked out in the Senate would help build support in the House when that chamber House begins debate on its energy package. Already, Rep. John D. Dingell, (D-Mich.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have battled over fuel economy.
In another Senate battle yesterday, Democrats lost a fight against oil companies when Republicans blocked a $32 billion tax package that would have poured money into alternative fuel projects by raising taxes on oil and gas companies.
President Bush, meanwhile, visited the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens, Ala., where he touted nuclear power as a clean, dependable and safe source of electricity and promised to streamline the federal regulatory process to ease the way for the construction of new plants.
"Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases," Bush said. "If you're interested in cleaning up the air you ought to be for nuclear power."
Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher in Athens, Ala., contributed to this report.
dresses Angelina Jolie#39;s Atelier
Blog Feeds
05-24 08:20 AM
A year ago, Rahm Emmanuel tried to convince President Obama not to pursue health care legislation. It would be too divisive. Now he's making the same case on immigration and it is upsetting many pro-immigration Democrats. The problem is that President Obama was elected as an agent for change, not simply to be a status quo President who would mind the store until someone bolder comes along. I've been impressed that President Obama has indicated he would be content to be a one term President if that meant he could leave with major accomplishments under his belt. Let's hope his...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/immigration-advocates-wary-of-rahm-emmanuel.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/immigration-advocates-wary-of-rahm-emmanuel.html)
more...
makeup Pregnant Angelina Jolie
mallu
07-24 04:12 PM
If we lose our job after having the I-485 pending for more than 8 months, I-140 approved, how much time do we have to find another job?
Do we have to immediately withdraw the petition after losing/quiting a job?
Thanks!
The advice i got is that you should be in a new job ( and notified USCIS about usage of AC21 ) before,
1. The I-485 is approved
2. Any RFE directed to the old employer
I don't think one needs to withdraw application.
Do we have to immediately withdraw the petition after losing/quiting a job?
Thanks!
The advice i got is that you should be in a new job ( and notified USCIS about usage of AC21 ) before,
1. The I-485 is approved
2. Any RFE directed to the old employer
I don't think one needs to withdraw application.
girlfriend Angelina Jolie amp; Brad Pitt Grab #39;Mother and Father of 2006#39; Prize
Blog Feeds
06-25 05:00 PM
The US Men's national soccer team had one of the greatest victories in its history today when it knocked off Spain, the #1 team in the world, at the Confederations Cup in South Africa. There are two immigrants on the roster for the US - Freddy Adu (who I honored after he competed with the US Olympic team last year). The other immigrant is Benny Feilhaber, a Brazilian-born American who moved to the US when he was six years old. When he is not playing on the US national team, he competes for AGF, a Danish team. Before that, he...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/immigrant-of-the-day-benny-feilhaber-member-of-our-national-soccer-team.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/immigrant-of-the-day-benny-feilhaber-member-of-our-national-soccer-team.html)
hairstyles Angelina Jolie#39;s mother
nhfirefighter13
March 20th, 2006, 07:23 PM
Very nice. Attractive subject.
sandeep_sharma
03-28 11:22 AM
Hello -
I am currently in US on L-1B that is expiring on June 15th 2010. I am planning to travel to India and return to US around May 10th. That will be around a month from the date my visa expires. My question is will I face any problems at the port of entry upon my return? I am needed on an assignment in US until Aug 2011 and so my employer is planning to file an extension as soon as I return to US.
Appreciate your response!
Thanks.
I am currently in US on L-1B that is expiring on June 15th 2010. I am planning to travel to India and return to US around May 10th. That will be around a month from the date my visa expires. My question is will I face any problems at the port of entry upon my return? I am needed on an assignment in US until Aug 2011 and so my employer is planning to file an extension as soon as I return to US.
Appreciate your response!
Thanks.
xtronics
10-26 02:16 PM
Hi,
My wife's H4 was recently approved along with my H1. We both have different last names. My name is misspelled, an "a" missing and her middle initial is also different. What can I do to get a corrected H4? Can I go to local immigration office or something? My lawyer contacted the USCIS and they said they will respond in 45 days. They don't even guarantee that they will correct the approval document.
Please let me know
Thank you so much for your help
My wife's H4 was recently approved along with my H1. We both have different last names. My name is misspelled, an "a" missing and her middle initial is also different. What can I do to get a corrected H4? Can I go to local immigration office or something? My lawyer contacted the USCIS and they said they will respond in 45 days. They don't even guarantee that they will correct the approval document.
Please let me know
Thank you so much for your help
No comments:
Post a Comment