kishdam
02-07 02:22 PM
Such agreement is not against the law. GC is for your benefit, not employer's.
So technically employer may ask you to reimburse I-485 filing fees (including attorney fees). Permanent residency is I-485 approval. What is the exact language? May be you can avoid paying you can just switch to another employer?
Thanks for all the responses. Yes, I am planning to move before my I-485 is approved (with current retrogession my EB2 PD of 05 may need another 3-4 years to get current unless there is a change in the rules). Infact I am changing jobs next month. What I am worried about is when I give notice my current employer will sure bring up this agreement and might ask me to repay. I will try to convince/negotiate in my own way and try to settle amicably. But if does not happen I am worried about what the employer can do with this agreement - since the exact wording in the agreement says that I have to stay at the employer for 2 years after the approval of permanent residence application. I am trying to find the legal definitionof "approval of permanent residency application" - my interpretation is approval of I485. I will try to reason that my "permanent residency" application is not yet approved and will try to repay some reasonable amount. Hope it works.
For others wondering why I am worried so much - the agreement simply says that all expenses incurred including fees, lawyer charges, other administrative/misc expenses. It worded so vaguely (I know I shoud not have signed) they can throw any bill at me.
So technically employer may ask you to reimburse I-485 filing fees (including attorney fees). Permanent residency is I-485 approval. What is the exact language? May be you can avoid paying you can just switch to another employer?
Thanks for all the responses. Yes, I am planning to move before my I-485 is approved (with current retrogession my EB2 PD of 05 may need another 3-4 years to get current unless there is a change in the rules). Infact I am changing jobs next month. What I am worried about is when I give notice my current employer will sure bring up this agreement and might ask me to repay. I will try to convince/negotiate in my own way and try to settle amicably. But if does not happen I am worried about what the employer can do with this agreement - since the exact wording in the agreement says that I have to stay at the employer for 2 years after the approval of permanent residence application. I am trying to find the legal definitionof "approval of permanent residency application" - my interpretation is approval of I485. I will try to reason that my "permanent residency" application is not yet approved and will try to repay some reasonable amount. Hope it works.
For others wondering why I am worried so much - the agreement simply says that all expenses incurred including fees, lawyer charges, other administrative/misc expenses. It worded so vaguely (I know I shoud not have signed) they can throw any bill at me.
wallpaper cute quotes on life and love.
johnggberg
07-17 02:30 PM
but it dose not add any value, as the message does not give any more information then, what we already know
chanduv23
03-09 02:40 PM
In similar context I have a few questions...
The EB2 date is stuck at Jan 08,2003 for months now.I know about retrogression and all that. But can someone explain why the date is not moving? Is it because they ran out of numbers for EB2 for FY 06? (Like they do in H1 cases)
Also does anyone know why the EB2 visa numbers were dropped from 537 in FY05 to 145 in FY06? and why suddenly in 2006 they granted so many visas(6083 in FY06 vs 0 in FY05) to Schedule A workers (Nurses,Physical Therapist,Aliens with excep ability) ? was Schedule A category backlogged for all these years? I am just trying to get some things cleared about how the visa numbers are allocated.
As most EB3 numbers go to IT software and as there are so many issues, until DOS and USCIS fix these issues they wont move these forward
The EB2 date is stuck at Jan 08,2003 for months now.I know about retrogression and all that. But can someone explain why the date is not moving? Is it because they ran out of numbers for EB2 for FY 06? (Like they do in H1 cases)
Also does anyone know why the EB2 visa numbers were dropped from 537 in FY05 to 145 in FY06? and why suddenly in 2006 they granted so many visas(6083 in FY06 vs 0 in FY05) to Schedule A workers (Nurses,Physical Therapist,Aliens with excep ability) ? was Schedule A category backlogged for all these years? I am just trying to get some things cleared about how the visa numbers are allocated.
As most EB3 numbers go to IT software and as there are so many issues, until DOS and USCIS fix these issues they wont move these forward
2011 quotes about life and love.
mrajatish
05-25 08:52 AM
Jazzy2, please talk to staff if you can - they like personal interaction. Best of luck. Called Sen. Graham, and Sen. Alexandar. Also, call the business friendly repubs and immi friendly democrats more. Called patty murray, maria cantell, Harry reid, Sen Lieberman, Sen. Salazar, Mccain, Cornyn, Martinez, Obama, Leahy.
more...
anirudh74
08-08 09:19 PM
I am sorry to say , but I have not seen any results from IV as well , they seem to be in the same boat as us, wait , wait and wait more, things will take care of themselves over time, seems to be the strategy.
eb3_nepa
01-08 04:22 PM
How did you guys manage to get H1's so recently from H4?
Is there a way that H4 are exempt from the H1 quota?
Is there a way that H4 are exempt from the H1 quota?
more...
psaxena
10-20 12:38 PM
RealClearPolitics - Election 2010 - Iowa Senate - Grassley vs. Conlin (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ia/iowa_senate_grassley_vs_conlin-1217.html)
This is going nowhere... Guys what are prospects of Grassley winning the Nov elections...I hope he looses
This is going nowhere... Guys what are prospects of Grassley winning the Nov elections...I hope he looses
2010 touching quotes on life and
kevnss
03-18 03:06 PM
Yesterday I went to SSN Administration office to apply SSN for my wife to get the tax rebate, you definitely need EAD if that person doesn't have work permit. So it automatically changes the status from H4 to EAD. I have also confirmed this the officer about the status, he confirmed that the status will automatically changed to EAD. So H4 no longer exists for spouse if the spouse carried H4 earlier. Hope this will answers your question. Regarding the tax rebate, you have to have SSN to qualify, so that's the main reason I went to SSN administration office for my wife.
more...
ivgclive
03-20 05:37 PM
Hi Everyone,
Our Immigration status is EAD and my wife is pregnant,
We are very happy with the news..
There is lot of possibility for us to be in India during due date, based on few important events in family.
We would like to know.. if baby is born in India then what possibilities are there for us to bring baby along with us?
(if mother stays in India for couple of more months)
can baby also get Green Card when we (parents) are allotted green card?
All your advices are always appreciated.
Thanks & Regards,
Satya.
Note: Admins if required, please close this thread and redirect to any existing ones, as i could not find one I have posted a new thread.
Congratulations!
If you have the baby in India, you can bring only if you are in H1B as H4.
EAD - Sorry.
If you plan to stay in US, forget your family events, they are the payments you make towards your GC.
Our Immigration status is EAD and my wife is pregnant,
We are very happy with the news..
There is lot of possibility for us to be in India during due date, based on few important events in family.
We would like to know.. if baby is born in India then what possibilities are there for us to bring baby along with us?
(if mother stays in India for couple of more months)
can baby also get Green Card when we (parents) are allotted green card?
All your advices are always appreciated.
Thanks & Regards,
Satya.
Note: Admins if required, please close this thread and redirect to any existing ones, as i could not find one I have posted a new thread.
Congratulations!
If you have the baby in India, you can bring only if you are in H1B as H4.
EAD - Sorry.
If you plan to stay in US, forget your family events, they are the payments you make towards your GC.
hair nice quotes on life and love.
new_phd
06-15 04:05 PM
Congrats RLNY122004! Dont forget IV!
Our I485 approved today and officer told us we will receive our cards in 6 to 8 weeks. Thanks
Our I485 approved today and officer told us we will receive our cards in 6 to 8 weeks. Thanks
more...
Anders �stberg
June 16th, 2005, 11:07 AM
Thanks for your comments! I'll see what I can do to lighten the second one up a little bit more. Please feel free to experiment if you like.
EDIT: OK, I've lightened the mid tones a bit, hopefully there's some detail visible in the feathers now. I don't want to make it too light though. Black feathers are difficult...
EDIT: OK, I've lightened the mid tones a bit, hopefully there's some detail visible in the feathers now. I don't want to make it too light though. Black feathers are difficult...
hot touching quotes on life and
mmk123
12-19 04:41 AM
After near to unsuccessful attempt to spoil healthcare, *R* team is getting ready to spoil immigration reform efforts. Writer is well-known for talking baseless, stupid and racist comments. But, unfortunately the political atmosphere is such that even SJ news-paper couldn't resist posting this. Fasten your seat belts and get ready for even more bumpier ride than health reform.
more...
house cute quotes on life and love.
eb3_nepa
11-06 04:30 PM
Here is the link with the clarification released on Jun 6th By Michael Aytes, Astt Director of USCIS regarding Non Cap h1B's
http://149.101.23.2/graphics/lawsregs/handbook/AC21C060606.pdf
These roles qualify for non cap H1B's
* Renewals of existing H1b's
* If are working for a not for profit institution
* If you are working for a institute of higher education ( as defined by the US education act of 1964, institutes like 2 yr and 4 year colleges and some high schools which have teacher education programs with schools of education in these colleges) or a government research institution or a company associated with the above institutions where the primary objective of the company is to supplement the mission of the institutions, example would be a company providing research assistants to a reseach medical hospital. In this case the company is not cap exempt but the job involves the institution that is cap exempt.
What kind of institution will your wife be a financial analyst in?
I am not an attorney, pls consult an attorney regarding your specific case. Hope this information helps.
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
http://149.101.23.2/graphics/lawsregs/handbook/AC21C060606.pdf
These roles qualify for non cap H1B's
* Renewals of existing H1b's
* If are working for a not for profit institution
* If you are working for a institute of higher education ( as defined by the US education act of 1964, institutes like 2 yr and 4 year colleges and some high schools which have teacher education programs with schools of education in these colleges) or a government research institution or a company associated with the above institutions where the primary objective of the company is to supplement the mission of the institutions, example would be a company providing research assistants to a reseach medical hospital. In this case the company is not cap exempt but the job involves the institution that is cap exempt.
What kind of institution will your wife be a financial analyst in?
I am not an attorney, pls consult an attorney regarding your specific case. Hope this information helps.
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
tattoo quotes about life and love and
terpcurt
January 6th, 2005, 07:08 PM
Now I am Jealous......... you guys make it look easy, and I have no clue on how you get the color into the B&W like you do..........................
more...
pictures emo quotes about life and love
GCWarrior
04-16 02:57 PM
Thanks for the quick response gurus. Would like to know if anyone else is in the same boat. Also because of this issue, my spouse is resigning her job and going out of US for a H4 stamp. Is there any way we can avoid it as it is a oversight issue?
Thanks
Thanks
dresses Quotes About Love and Life
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
makeup Life Quotes: A life without
chnaveen
03-16 03:41 PM
Need your opinion on this.. filed for I-485 on EB2 in July 07. I am the primary applicant. I have been married since May '04. Need to apply for a divorce. My wife, a derivative in my application, is holding up the process as it may affect her chances of getting a GC without any sweat. She has an parallel GC process running solely in her name, which I believe hasnt cleared PERM yet (some sort of audit). She is on H1B, extendable for another 3 years, and has EAD from my GC application. Will there be any implications on her application if the divorce goes through? And also, can I out of spite do anything to get her derivative application out of the queue :rolleyes: ?
Any 485 application based on a dependent status to the Primary will be decided based on the relationship. If the relationship breaks legally (through Divorce) before the final decision on the pending 485, the dependent's 485 application will be denied. But as you said, she is on H1 and has another GC processing solely in her name, that would not be affected at all with your divorce and also her H1 status too not affected.
Dependent's current EAD based on your GC will also be revoked, but I am not sure whether EAD will be valid until 485 is denied.
You may have to send your Divorce decree to USCIS mentionig about the Change of Status in your maritial Status and referring to your pending 485 Application receipt numbers including her application's receipt numbers.
Any 485 application based on a dependent status to the Primary will be decided based on the relationship. If the relationship breaks legally (through Divorce) before the final decision on the pending 485, the dependent's 485 application will be denied. But as you said, she is on H1 and has another GC processing solely in her name, that would not be affected at all with your divorce and also her H1 status too not affected.
Dependent's current EAD based on your GC will also be revoked, but I am not sure whether EAD will be valid until 485 is denied.
You may have to send your Divorce decree to USCIS mentionig about the Change of Status in your maritial Status and referring to your pending 485 Application receipt numbers including her application's receipt numbers.
girlfriend quotes about life and love and
admin
03-28 06:03 PM
I agree that you guys should push for an ammendment that one should be able to file 485 and join the queue and get the derivative benefits once 140 is approved. If we get that alone it is better than nothing.
However let me put it to you guys that without the green card in hand, living in limbo land albeit with some mobility is no fun either. Isn't that sort of what the illegals have now at their own labour level. We will be 2nd class citizens to be discarded at a fire brand politician's whim and fancy.If that wait is many years it will not be good. Further those applying later and later will eventually end up with inordinate waits leaving them the choice of waiting for decades like in some family based categories.
I am only saying this since it was stated that this should be the number one priority. The absolute number one priority for all of us should be to quicken the time to a GREEN CARD.
posmd,
If we're able to make every category current, then this amendment for filing I-485 will be moot. But then again our goals will have to tempered with ground reality. While we're fighting very hard against the hard country limit, there is no guarantee that it will be revoked. In the house-senate conference again, we cannot be sure that all of the exemptions like the ones for Dependents, STEM will not be stripped. So there is a very high chance that priority dates are not going to become current. So with that in mind, we need to make sure that atleast our life during the time that we're waiting for GC is much easier.
However let me put it to you guys that without the green card in hand, living in limbo land albeit with some mobility is no fun either. Isn't that sort of what the illegals have now at their own labour level. We will be 2nd class citizens to be discarded at a fire brand politician's whim and fancy.If that wait is many years it will not be good. Further those applying later and later will eventually end up with inordinate waits leaving them the choice of waiting for decades like in some family based categories.
I am only saying this since it was stated that this should be the number one priority. The absolute number one priority for all of us should be to quicken the time to a GREEN CARD.
posmd,
If we're able to make every category current, then this amendment for filing I-485 will be moot. But then again our goals will have to tempered with ground reality. While we're fighting very hard against the hard country limit, there is no guarantee that it will be revoked. In the house-senate conference again, we cannot be sure that all of the exemptions like the ones for Dependents, STEM will not be stripped. So there is a very high chance that priority dates are not going to become current. So with that in mind, we need to make sure that atleast our life during the time that we're waiting for GC is much easier.
hairstyles good quotes about life and
looneytunezez
04-20 06:07 PM
Just got my passport renewed at SF.
Applied in person and opted to get it back in the mail.
Got it in hand exactly in a week from application date...(pretty smooth)....
And i used 2X2 in photo instead of 3.5X3.5 cms....both are ok.
They will adjust it properly in your passport for you...
All the best.
Thanks for your responses.
One last question.
After printing the application form, I see that the photograph size is 3.5 cms * 3.5 cms that the consulate requires. But when I check for the passport size photo in walgreens it is 2 inches * 2 inches. Is it fine if I send 2 inches * 2 inches photo or should I cut exactly 3.5 cms * 3.5 cms and paste one in the form and send the other 2 ?
Thanks.
Applied in person and opted to get it back in the mail.
Got it in hand exactly in a week from application date...(pretty smooth)....
And i used 2X2 in photo instead of 3.5X3.5 cms....both are ok.
They will adjust it properly in your passport for you...
All the best.
Thanks for your responses.
One last question.
After printing the application form, I see that the photograph size is 3.5 cms * 3.5 cms that the consulate requires. But when I check for the passport size photo in walgreens it is 2 inches * 2 inches. Is it fine if I send 2 inches * 2 inches photo or should I cut exactly 3.5 cms * 3.5 cms and paste one in the form and send the other 2 ?
Thanks.
HereIComeGC
03-26 02:54 PM
That I agree, I should say it was some what an exaggeration when I said I could predict NASDAQ ...
But son't you guys think that this uncertainty also adds to the excitement of life here for us? Don't get me wrong ... just sharing a perspective here! Even I want my GC as desperately as any of us :)
I agree. Sometimes I think I will be a little bit sad when I receive the green card because I would miss this daily excitments! As the saying goes "Its the Journey that matters, not the destination"
But son't you guys think that this uncertainty also adds to the excitement of life here for us? Don't get me wrong ... just sharing a perspective here! Even I want my GC as desperately as any of us :)
I agree. Sometimes I think I will be a little bit sad when I receive the green card because I would miss this daily excitments! As the saying goes "Its the Journey that matters, not the destination"
BPforGC
06-23 04:12 PM
Guys,
Lets focus energies on "Reuniting Families Act". Use this word. Its important. Visa recapture is part of it, but emphasize "FAMILY".
We need this bill and 350,000 VISAS that come with it. We have to make sure that those VISAs don't need to used 'per country' basis. Those VISAs must be distributed to whoever is in line, no matter which country they belong to.
IV core, please focus on this. We need this bill and all those recaptured VISAs can be used for anyone in the line, pre-adjudication complete and held-up because there is no VISA, irrespective of the changeability.
Lets focus energies on "Reuniting Families Act". Use this word. Its important. Visa recapture is part of it, but emphasize "FAMILY".
We need this bill and 350,000 VISAS that come with it. We have to make sure that those VISAs don't need to used 'per country' basis. Those VISAs must be distributed to whoever is in line, no matter which country they belong to.
IV core, please focus on this. We need this bill and all those recaptured VISAs can be used for anyone in the line, pre-adjudication complete and held-up because there is no VISA, irrespective of the changeability.