indio0617
09-21 04:53 PM
Currently since labour is progressing really slowly and considering that it looks like fresh labour will get approved quickly .. but folks will have to wait 4-5 years to get into the 140/485 stage, are there are efforts being made by IV to get dependents say an interim EAD, so that they can start working, rather than be a victim of the process.
I think the biggest casualty of the process are the dependents, who unless qualified to get an h1, have no option but sit at home. I know both male and female dependents in this situation.
Wouldn't it make sense to lobby for an interim EAD in following cases:
1. if labour has not been cleared say for a long time period .. (maybe 2 years), or
2. cleared .. but people have waited a long time period but the dates for 140/485 are not current?
Not sure if this issue has been debated before.
vivache:
Top on IV's goals is 'ability to file for I-485' even when visa number is not available. As you perhaps know this will enable securing an EAD. Hope this answers your question.
I think the biggest casualty of the process are the dependents, who unless qualified to get an h1, have no option but sit at home. I know both male and female dependents in this situation.
Wouldn't it make sense to lobby for an interim EAD in following cases:
1. if labour has not been cleared say for a long time period .. (maybe 2 years), or
2. cleared .. but people have waited a long time period but the dates for 140/485 are not current?
Not sure if this issue has been debated before.
vivache:
Top on IV's goals is 'ability to file for I-485' even when visa number is not available. As you perhaps know this will enable securing an EAD. Hope this answers your question.
wallpaper 1983 Honda Prelude silver - Full-Size Picture 03BDH132891088A
chanduv23
12-25 11:30 AM
Great Idea!
I'm thinking of printing some and leaving it in local worship places mostly visited by immigrants(in my case its a hindu temple)
You can post it on the notice board. Generally temples charge $2 or $5 for putting up a notice.
I'm thinking of printing some and leaving it in local worship places mostly visited by immigrants(in my case its a hindu temple)
You can post it on the notice board. Generally temples charge $2 or $5 for putting up a notice.
shortchanged
07-18 07:16 PM
Since it is asked when was your last entry into USA, your I-94 on 15th has to be entered into the 485 application.So to be safe, you will have to be in USA at the time your I-485 form is filed.Actually if you can overnight First Fedex it,it will arrive at NSC on 17th morning, you will still be in the window of opportunity.Remember,NSC picks up mail only once a day.
If I were you, I would return back earlier than 15th to be in USA at the time of filing.You never know when your next opportunity for AOS filing will come.
In fact I am cancelling 5 airline tickets ,I am loosing $1500.00 just for this cancellation,in addition to many other inconveniences.I am sending my Mother all by herself.
If I were you, I would return back earlier than 15th to be in USA at the time of filing.You never know when your next opportunity for AOS filing will come.
In fact I am cancelling 5 airline tickets ,I am loosing $1500.00 just for this cancellation,in addition to many other inconveniences.I am sending my Mother all by herself.
2011 2001 Honda Prelude Silver. This is my 2001 Honda Prelude
crystal
09-14 03:43 PM
i understood that. I was just kidding :Di meant the quality was like, that perhaps my computer is messing it up
more...
bostonian28
05-16 11:35 AM
I have just called all the Representatives mentioned in the above thread and conveyed the message. Similar experience, nice people (I am sure they are supposed to be nice, as they would take calls from voters!!), I also heard similar responses saying they have been getting many calls.
rajuseattle
08-04 01:23 PM
Sorry to hear about your friend's situation.
From your answers it looks like she is on H-4 which is dependent spouse for H1B.
If she is qualified enough ask her to find a new employer who is willing to sponsor her a H1B.
She can transfer her status from H-4 to H1B and it will not be counted against the annual H1B quota.
Once she finds new employer she can start her GC process.
If she cant find job here and be in H1B status, the only option is to go back to her Home country...or another option is to remarry with someone who has legal status here and then she can derive the dependent status.
From your answers it looks like she is on H-4 which is dependent spouse for H1B.
If she is qualified enough ask her to find a new employer who is willing to sponsor her a H1B.
She can transfer her status from H-4 to H1B and it will not be counted against the annual H1B quota.
Once she finds new employer she can start her GC process.
If she cant find job here and be in H1B status, the only option is to go back to her Home country...or another option is to remarry with someone who has legal status here and then she can derive the dependent status.
more...
BharatPremi
12-10 12:46 PM
any suggestions if 140 is not approved?
Filed in August 2007......doesn't look like there is much movement based on tracker!!!!
EAD in hand
Yes. If I-140 is not approved, Do not use AC-21.
Filed in August 2007......doesn't look like there is much movement based on tracker!!!!
EAD in hand
Yes. If I-140 is not approved, Do not use AC-21.
2010 Honda Prelude Forum
bsbawa10
04-11 08:58 AM
I have couple of questions
2. Also there is question "Please provide information concerning your eligibility status:", what should I provide in that text box.
Please suggest.
I think you can say 485 filed.
2. Also there is question "Please provide information concerning your eligibility status:", what should I provide in that text box.
Please suggest.
I think you can say 485 filed.
more...
rongha_2000
07-17 03:55 PM
I am ashamed to read these comments coming from "highly skilled" people. Administrators please take preventive steps. We dont want some sickos malign IV. :mad: :mad:
Murthy is a she...and I would but I'm not single. ;)
Murthy is a she...and I would but I'm not single. ;)
hair Skunk2 Racing Parts middot; 93-96 94
karthkc
03-27 05:47 PM
I was on bench for 4 months in 2001. I have 2 times H1 transfer after that and visited India couple of times. I have regular pay stubs from 2002 onwards.
Can this create an issue while IO is working on my 485 application?
The official stance from my attorneys on this kind of a situation is to ensure that you were not "unlawfully present" in the US during the time in question.
What that means is if you were over 180+ days out of status, you enter into what is known as "unlawful presence" period. In that situation, the penalties are far more severe than just status violation.
In your case, the time period is well within that limit and that coupled with the fact that you were lawfully re-admitted into the US twice since the period should not cause concern.
If it does come up during adjudication, a good attorney should be able to compose a response accordingly.
Hope that helps!
--Karthik
Can this create an issue while IO is working on my 485 application?
The official stance from my attorneys on this kind of a situation is to ensure that you were not "unlawfully present" in the US during the time in question.
What that means is if you were over 180+ days out of status, you enter into what is known as "unlawful presence" period. In that situation, the penalties are far more severe than just status violation.
In your case, the time period is well within that limit and that coupled with the fact that you were lawfully re-admitted into the US twice since the period should not cause concern.
If it does come up during adjudication, a good attorney should be able to compose a response accordingly.
Hope that helps!
--Karthik
more...
rajnag21
07-20 07:28 PM
Hi All,
Is having paystubs absolutely essential or will w2's suffice ?
Is having paystubs absolutely essential or will w2's suffice ?
hot Preelude#39;s Silver BB6 Build up
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...
house Honda Prelude front brake
simple1
06-18 06:22 PM
I know that is a problem. We all are aware of EB3@U.
My question was Is there any problem specific to ROW that is not faced by non-ROW ?
I don�t want to carry this (ROW non-ROW) conversation forward.
Letus focus on, What is in CIR for legal immigration ?
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?
Just so you know, EB3-ROW has the exact same issue at the EB3-India; they are both unavailable. Is that not a problem? Don't take my word for it, just look at the recent visa bulletins.
Having said that, if you don't know what all the problems are with different preference categories for ROW or non-ROW then may be you need to spend some time educating yourself before making statements suggesting that ROW does't need any relief or only Indians are suffering through the EB mess.
My question was Is there any problem specific to ROW that is not faced by non-ROW ?
I don�t want to carry this (ROW non-ROW) conversation forward.
Letus focus on, What is in CIR for legal immigration ?
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?
Just so you know, EB3-ROW has the exact same issue at the EB3-India; they are both unavailable. Is that not a problem? Don't take my word for it, just look at the recent visa bulletins.
Having said that, if you don't know what all the problems are with different preference categories for ROW or non-ROW then may be you need to spend some time educating yourself before making statements suggesting that ROW does't need any relief or only Indians are suffering through the EB mess.
tattoo 2000 Honda Prelude (gone)
nmdial
08-04 11:02 AM
am staying in US for d past 4 yrs ,have a H1 B visa. i want to invite my younger brother and mom for a ONE month visit to US.My mom has already got 10 yrs of visa as she visited dis place in 2008. My brother has just completed his engineering , is 21 yrs of age and has got placed in infosys.His joining date is in December, so would it be easy for him to get d visitors visa as even i want him to have some fun b4 starting off with his work life. Should he carry his offer letter with him and also would it b wise to book d ticket in advance and show them d return ticket as a proof just to tell them tat he will b back in a month and also would like to know the other questions which r expected. Please HELP.Looking forward to your replies
thanks in advance:)
I am in a similar boat as I want to invite my sister on a visitor visa for a month here. I think, any document that supports the fact that the visitor will return to India is always helpful.
thanks in advance:)
I am in a similar boat as I want to invite my sister on a visitor visa for a month here. I think, any document that supports the fact that the visitor will return to India is always helpful.
more...
pictures Honda Prelude 97-01 gt; 2
rabis
04-13 02:00 PM
For a medical REF how many days do we have to reply?
Thanks,
RabiS
Thanks,
RabiS
dresses Kip#39;s Honda Prelude
aj1234567
11-21 05:52 PM
hi-
What will happen if 140 still penidng agter passed 6months 485 recipt date,can i cahnge the jobs in this situtation also
Thanks
Aj
What will happen if 140 still penidng agter passed 6months 485 recipt date,can i cahnge the jobs in this situtation also
Thanks
Aj
more...
makeup 2000 Honda Prelude (silver)
Anders �stberg
June 19th, 2005, 09:29 AM
A bit better but still a little grey. I don't think you can get detail on the chest area for instance and keep the blacks looking black on the rest of the bird.
I do use autofocus, at least with the 1D2 it works fine. The 20D is a bit iffy, it should work but it hunts sometimes.
I do use autofocus, at least with the 1D2 it works fine. The 20D is a bit iffy, it should work but it hunts sometimes.
girlfriend honda-prelude-silver-
.jpg "43481, Honda Prelude Mk1 1980")
panky72
06-20 02:28 PM
I would like to know if we can travel on AP without a I485 notice, do they ask for it at POE??
Our attorney never told us that he did not receive my I485 notice till date!! we filed in July and he received one of the notice in Oct 2007. He is telling me now when I about to fly in a months time. He has also asked me apply for the renewal of AP & EAD, he has asked me attach the biometric notice instead of I485 notice and my husbands I485 notice.
Can anyone who has traveled on AP without a I485 notice share their experience. Any suggestions are welcome...
Thanks
You can travel on H-1 without I-485 receipt according to new USCIS rule but for travel on AP you still need the receipt for 485.
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_firule.html
Our attorney never told us that he did not receive my I485 notice till date!! we filed in July and he received one of the notice in Oct 2007. He is telling me now when I about to fly in a months time. He has also asked me apply for the renewal of AP & EAD, he has asked me attach the biometric notice instead of I485 notice and my husbands I485 notice.
Can anyone who has traveled on AP without a I485 notice share their experience. Any suggestions are welcome...
Thanks
You can travel on H-1 without I-485 receipt according to new USCIS rule but for travel on AP you still need the receipt for 485.
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_firule.html
hairstyles Honda Prelude silver - 1983 - Picture 03BDH132891088C
we_r_d_world
10-19 12:30 PM
Look at the profile...... join date and no. of posts.
pak
07-20 10:29 AM
Go to maxico but getting visa of Mexico from US is difficult on B1/B2. Canadian visa for her on B1/B2 visa is impossible. Check and call other near by countries visa consulate as well as US consular visa officer for the availibility of dates of H4 visa interview.
Hope you will find the solution.
Hope you will find the solution.
ananthd
09-17 10:25 PM
Hi Guys,
My wife was on a H1B visa with a company until June 2010. She is no longer working and her Her H1B visa is now expired.
I am in the final stage of my green card process and we have both EAD and Advance parole. Since we have valid EADs and Advance Parole documents, we didn�t bother to pursue a H4 dependent visa for her. We are planning to go to Thailand next week for a 10 day vacation. I just want to confirm that she will be able to come back into the US with her Advance Parole document which is valid until June 2011.
I would really appreciate your quick response since we are looking to purchase tickets in the next couple hours.
Thanks and have a great weekend,
My wife was on a H1B visa with a company until June 2010. She is no longer working and her Her H1B visa is now expired.
I am in the final stage of my green card process and we have both EAD and Advance parole. Since we have valid EADs and Advance Parole documents, we didn�t bother to pursue a H4 dependent visa for her. We are planning to go to Thailand next week for a 10 day vacation. I just want to confirm that she will be able to come back into the US with her Advance Parole document which is valid until June 2011.
I would really appreciate your quick response since we are looking to purchase tickets in the next couple hours.
Thanks and have a great weekend,
0 comments:
Post a Comment