macml
01-29 05:44 PM
Sorry, I can't help you out on how to fill out the application. My lawyer did it for me.
wallpaper victoria beckham makeup
seekerofpeace
10-05 11:05 PM
that was hilarious GCN007...BTW my wife got approved to finally....
Years ago or should I say ages ago not even in the US of A but at Heathrow at the American Airlines counter (that time I was a student for MS) the lady was going thru my I-20 and was asking for additional documents et al...so I had this bunch of documents in my folder...and her eyes landed on my degree certificate...she asked me you have a degree from IIT and you couldn't get a job still ? that's why you are going for your MS....i was like well I wanted to do research....why not in India? I was like this is not even USA and this is my 2nd visit to USA (after the Christmas break in the 2nd year)....why are they asking so many questions and this is pre-9/11.....
I was like why is she harassing me....Do you have intentions of staying back in the USA after you finish your MS....I said no I plan to do my PhD in the UK...She gave me a ugly look and stamped my passport and let me go....
SoP
Years ago or should I say ages ago not even in the US of A but at Heathrow at the American Airlines counter (that time I was a student for MS) the lady was going thru my I-20 and was asking for additional documents et al...so I had this bunch of documents in my folder...and her eyes landed on my degree certificate...she asked me you have a degree from IIT and you couldn't get a job still ? that's why you are going for your MS....i was like well I wanted to do research....why not in India? I was like this is not even USA and this is my 2nd visit to USA (after the Christmas break in the 2nd year)....why are they asking so many questions and this is pre-9/11.....
I was like why is she harassing me....Do you have intentions of staying back in the USA after you finish your MS....I said no I plan to do my PhD in the UK...She gave me a ugly look and stamped my passport and let me go....
SoP
diptam
01-16 12:45 PM
indyanguy,
Sorry to see that USCIS is bugging you. I think i know you from the "Letter to Ombudsman" forum ... I also got a useless RFE but not for experience letter, so you may use my experience letter as benchmark.
I asked my friend ( who is a Project manager at my old Company) to getted it notarized ( what we call attested at India) from the local Bank. The Bank officer will just make sure the undersigned is the actual signee... No company HR will do all the crap , so its better to go via the Friend/Ex-coworker route ... Unless you get GC , you need to maintain old relationships :) anyway , here you go ....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 05, 2007
RE: XXX YYY
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This letter is to verify that Mr. XXX YYY was employed by GGGGGG as a full-time Software Engineer from August 1998 to October 2004.During this period he worked 40 Hours per week.
During the period of employment at GGGGGGG Mr. XXX YYY�s duty were to Plan, design, develop, test and document application software using XML, JSP,EJB,JDBC,ASP,VB,COMObjects,XSL,JavaServlets,Ja vascripts,DHTML,Linux,CSS,Domino & Lotus Notes,.Net,ASP.Net,SQL Server 2000,WebLogic,Websphere with ORACLE database in Windows and Unix environments.
Mr. XXX YYY has always rendered his services with the highest degree of responsibility and professionalism and we wish Mr. YYY all the best in his future endeavors.
Sincerely,
_____________________________
Mr. CCC DDDD
Project Manager
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks.
What is the difference between an affidavit and a letter? Affidavit is one that is not on a letter head and a letter is the one on a letter head or it depends on who is writing the letter?
Does 1 each serve the purpose?
With the initial packet, I had sent
1 letter from Company A (By the director on letterhead)
2 letters from Company B (1 from colleague on letterhead and 1 from HR on letterhead)
Sorry to see that USCIS is bugging you. I think i know you from the "Letter to Ombudsman" forum ... I also got a useless RFE but not for experience letter, so you may use my experience letter as benchmark.
I asked my friend ( who is a Project manager at my old Company) to getted it notarized ( what we call attested at India) from the local Bank. The Bank officer will just make sure the undersigned is the actual signee... No company HR will do all the crap , so its better to go via the Friend/Ex-coworker route ... Unless you get GC , you need to maintain old relationships :) anyway , here you go ....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 05, 2007
RE: XXX YYY
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This letter is to verify that Mr. XXX YYY was employed by GGGGGG as a full-time Software Engineer from August 1998 to October 2004.During this period he worked 40 Hours per week.
During the period of employment at GGGGGGG Mr. XXX YYY�s duty were to Plan, design, develop, test and document application software using XML, JSP,EJB,JDBC,ASP,VB,COMObjects,XSL,JavaServlets,Ja vascripts,DHTML,Linux,CSS,Domino & Lotus Notes,.Net,ASP.Net,SQL Server 2000,WebLogic,Websphere with ORACLE database in Windows and Unix environments.
Mr. XXX YYY has always rendered his services with the highest degree of responsibility and professionalism and we wish Mr. YYY all the best in his future endeavors.
Sincerely,
_____________________________
Mr. CCC DDDD
Project Manager
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks.
What is the difference between an affidavit and a letter? Affidavit is one that is not on a letter head and a letter is the one on a letter head or it depends on who is writing the letter?
Does 1 each serve the purpose?
With the initial packet, I had sent
1 letter from Company A (By the director on letterhead)
2 letters from Company B (1 from colleague on letterhead and 1 from HR on letterhead)
2011 eckham without makeup.
vicky007
05-10 12:16 PM
Sorry, the link is not working anymore.
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
more...
harrydr
06-29 06:32 PM
Hello,
Forum Gurus, i have a basic question. Currently i'm employed by a corporation and working full time for them under H1B. Now, i want to work for additional company as part time (approx. 20 hrs/week). This company cannot give me cash but only check. Is it possible to file additional H1B just for this company and start working for them under this new H1B?
My current status is: H1B approved with current company and I-140 approved.
Also, if the answer to my question above is yes, then could this affect my current H1B and approved I-140 in any ways. Thanks in advance.
Forum Gurus, i have a basic question. Currently i'm employed by a corporation and working full time for them under H1B. Now, i want to work for additional company as part time (approx. 20 hrs/week). This company cannot give me cash but only check. Is it possible to file additional H1B just for this company and start working for them under this new H1B?
My current status is: H1B approved with current company and I-140 approved.
Also, if the answer to my question above is yes, then could this affect my current H1B and approved I-140 in any ways. Thanks in advance.
gc28262
03-06 05:06 PM
Back in the old days when there weren't as many IV members, people thought twice before giving a red dot to anyone. Now it has become kind of a fashion. You can get a red dot for asking questions someone thinks has already been asked or for asking simple questions which someone thinks that you should know or if you doesn't agree with someone's viewpoint etc etc. You might get a red dot if someone doesn't like your handle :D
After someone presented a data of how many visas were allocated to India in past five years, I made a comment that India has in fact gotten far more visas than the allowed 7% in past few years. That was just an observation from the data presented yet I ended up with about 200 disapprovals and 2 red dots. I didn't say that India shouldn't have gotten those visas or if it was fair/unfair to anyone else but lot of people just hated the comment.
It just shows how intolerant IVians have become to other people's point of view. I am sure I'll get a red dot for this too :D
I guess there are some anti-immigrants on the forum who is determined to discourage members by giving red dots. I see too many people receiving red dots for no reason now a days.
Solution. just ignore them.
Admins/Core members,
Please take necessary steps to discourage this red-dot festival !
After someone presented a data of how many visas were allocated to India in past five years, I made a comment that India has in fact gotten far more visas than the allowed 7% in past few years. That was just an observation from the data presented yet I ended up with about 200 disapprovals and 2 red dots. I didn't say that India shouldn't have gotten those visas or if it was fair/unfair to anyone else but lot of people just hated the comment.
It just shows how intolerant IVians have become to other people's point of view. I am sure I'll get a red dot for this too :D
I guess there are some anti-immigrants on the forum who is determined to discourage members by giving red dots. I see too many people receiving red dots for no reason now a days.
Solution. just ignore them.
Admins/Core members,
Please take necessary steps to discourage this red-dot festival !
more...
bigtiger
06-30 05:33 PM
Hi All,
By reading the AILF pdf:
http://www.murthy.com/current485/VisaBulletinFAQ6-29-07.pdf
I get this impression that they primarily mean the "Other Worker" category AOS rejections done in June 2007...I don't know what rules govern that category, but rejections did happen despite visa bulletin indicating current status for that category and AILF is considering this lawsuit. Now they are assuming that this might happen for EB2, EB-3 categories also. Plus we have this $4.4 billion CIR failure theory. There is no document date mentioned in this doc. So, I don't know how AILF is so confident that this will happen for EB2, EB-3 categories, for the rejections of applications has not even happened yet.
By reading the AILF pdf:
http://www.murthy.com/current485/VisaBulletinFAQ6-29-07.pdf
I get this impression that they primarily mean the "Other Worker" category AOS rejections done in June 2007...I don't know what rules govern that category, but rejections did happen despite visa bulletin indicating current status for that category and AILF is considering this lawsuit. Now they are assuming that this might happen for EB2, EB-3 categories also. Plus we have this $4.4 billion CIR failure theory. There is no document date mentioned in this doc. So, I don't know how AILF is so confident that this will happen for EB2, EB-3 categories, for the rejections of applications has not even happened yet.
2010 Victoria Beckham looks
willy007
10-20 08:35 PM
The old lawyer has to notify USCIS that he is pulling out of your case or the new lawyer has to send the new G-28.
bump
^^^^^^^
What if he/she chose not to let USCIS know about it? Basically, you have no options than to hire a new lawyer to file G-28; otherwise USCIS will continue to send correspondence to the lawyer on file. If you don't file new G-28, the old lawyer can get every information on file from USCIS. Read G-28 for more information.
You are required to send the letter to where your case is filed.
I hope this helps and good luck on your green card chase.
Thanks canmt.
By the way, for the G-28, it doesn't have to be an attorney right? So, I can get somebody else that I trust to sign them to be my representative. Will this work? If I were to put my own name to be my own representative, is that going to flag them?
Do you know how much is it to get an attorney to sign the G-28 form? My PD is 3 years away, so I am pretty sure that the attorney won't have to do anything for quite a while (except for signing the form of course). If there are no RFE, the attorney possibly would not need to do anything at all.
bump
^^^^^^^
What if he/she chose not to let USCIS know about it? Basically, you have no options than to hire a new lawyer to file G-28; otherwise USCIS will continue to send correspondence to the lawyer on file. If you don't file new G-28, the old lawyer can get every information on file from USCIS. Read G-28 for more information.
You are required to send the letter to where your case is filed.
I hope this helps and good luck on your green card chase.
Thanks canmt.
By the way, for the G-28, it doesn't have to be an attorney right? So, I can get somebody else that I trust to sign them to be my representative. Will this work? If I were to put my own name to be my own representative, is that going to flag them?
Do you know how much is it to get an attorney to sign the G-28 form? My PD is 3 years away, so I am pretty sure that the attorney won't have to do anything for quite a while (except for signing the form of course). If there are no RFE, the attorney possibly would not need to do anything at all.
more...
chanduv23
05-04 04:49 PM
Thanks for the reply. You're right, emotion or logic has nothing to do with USCIS:):)http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
I don't have the letter with me but the denial is based on a law pertaining to me only submitting a partial answer to their request. How true that is is up to debate as my cosponsor says no but really, it doesn't matter what we say when the USCIS say something different.
We will not be getting a lawyer, we cannot afford that right now but we will probably file for the motion to reopen my case. I have a somewhat good understanding of what I need to do but not sure how successful we will be. Hopefully, they will accept our fee waiver form becuase we probably won't be sending them money. We would still like to know if anyone has tried to have their case reopened and how long it took and how it went.
Depends on what is in the denial letter. Usually such things need an experienced Attorney to handle MTR.
MTR has few choices and Attorneys pick the choice based what they want to do to open up ur case. Remember, if u check the wrong box, your MTR may go to appeals office.
The first step however is to get the denial letter in hand, and then talk to an experienced Attorney to handle ur case.
I don't have the letter with me but the denial is based on a law pertaining to me only submitting a partial answer to their request. How true that is is up to debate as my cosponsor says no but really, it doesn't matter what we say when the USCIS say something different.
We will not be getting a lawyer, we cannot afford that right now but we will probably file for the motion to reopen my case. I have a somewhat good understanding of what I need to do but not sure how successful we will be. Hopefully, they will accept our fee waiver form becuase we probably won't be sending them money. We would still like to know if anyone has tried to have their case reopened and how long it took and how it went.
Depends on what is in the denial letter. Usually such things need an experienced Attorney to handle MTR.
MTR has few choices and Attorneys pick the choice based what they want to do to open up ur case. Remember, if u check the wrong box, your MTR may go to appeals office.
The first step however is to get the denial letter in hand, and then talk to an experienced Attorney to handle ur case.
hair victoria beckham without
krustycat
09-28 10:32 PM
My 485/EAD applications were mailed on July 5th. and received on July 9th. by F HEINAUER at NSC.
I have not received a single notice and checks were not cashed.
I called customer service today and the they told me to wait 90 days.... :eek:business days!!!
I have not received a single notice and checks were not cashed.
I called customer service today and the they told me to wait 90 days.... :eek:business days!!!
more...
tabletpc
08-27 02:06 PM
Krishnam70,
Thanks for the details. I still have some questions and would like to clarify with you.. Was wondering if you could provide me u r contact number or email id.
Thanks
Thanks for the details. I still have some questions and would like to clarify with you.. Was wondering if you could provide me u r contact number or email id.
Thanks
hot Victoria Beckham
logiclife
06-08 06:05 PM
Premium processing is not against american values or any other values.
Just because its the government you are dealing with here instead of a private company does not mean there should not be options for faster service for extra fee.
If premium processing is against American values, then in that case, express-mail offered by USPS for extra charge is against American values. Express mail does not slow down first-class 39-cent mail but it provides an ALTERNATIVE to a consumer or citizen to go with better quality service for a fee. For a few dollars, you mail would reach somewhere overnight instead of 3 days.
Also, by that token, first-class travel is against American values? Would you rather that it go away too?
Premium processing is not going to slow down regular processing. But it offers an alternative to employers or employees if they want expedited service for extra money etc.
Just because its the government you are dealing with here instead of a private company does not mean there should not be options for faster service for extra fee.
If premium processing is against American values, then in that case, express-mail offered by USPS for extra charge is against American values. Express mail does not slow down first-class 39-cent mail but it provides an ALTERNATIVE to a consumer or citizen to go with better quality service for a fee. For a few dollars, you mail would reach somewhere overnight instead of 3 days.
Also, by that token, first-class travel is against American values? Would you rather that it go away too?
Premium processing is not going to slow down regular processing. But it offers an alternative to employers or employees if they want expedited service for extra money etc.
more...
house victoria beckham sans makeup
bmoni
08-21 01:35 PM
Thank you all.
Thanks for bringing up the I-94 validity based on the validity of PP. I will definitely get PP renewed while I'm in India with Takkal scheme.
@bushman06: Did the immigration officer gave you I-94 validity till PP expiry date or Visa expiry date.
Again thanks for all your thoughtful responses. I really appreciate it.
Thanks for bringing up the I-94 validity based on the validity of PP. I will definitely get PP renewed while I'm in India with Takkal scheme.
@bushman06: Did the immigration officer gave you I-94 validity till PP expiry date or Visa expiry date.
Again thanks for all your thoughtful responses. I really appreciate it.
tattoo victoria beckham MET GALA
sku
09-11 03:52 PM
I opened SR on 8th Sept, But no LUD's yet
more...
pictures Victoria#39;s already made her
eb3retro
04-28 09:42 AM
Texas also planning to join the bandwagon..
Texas lawmaker to introduce anti-immigration bill - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100428/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_texas_1)
Texas lawmaker to introduce anti-immigration bill - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100428/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_texas_1)
dresses Victoria Beckham, a.k.a Posh
mast_mastmunda
11-10 06:13 PM
Thanks again for the reply and wishes!!
Also sorry for another question as I forgot to mention this earlier.
My new H1B has more than 6 months of validity period.
One thing which I forgot to mention earlier is that when new Employer "B" did the H1B transfer (June 2007) from Employer "A" - the I-797 receipt # of Employer "B" came out of to be different from I-797 receipt # of Employer "A"?
Shouldn't the I-797 receipt #'s for Employer "A" and Employer "B" should be SAME as it's just an H1B transfer???
Employer "A" I-797 receipt #:
EAC - XXX-XXXX
I-797 valid : 0ct' 2009
Employer "B" I-797 receipt #:
WAC - XXX-XXXX
I-797 valid: June' 2010
As I-797 receipt # gets printed on the H1B visa in the Passport, does having a different I-797 receipt # (of Employer "B") affects anything at port of entry?
Appreciate your help!
Also sorry for another question as I forgot to mention this earlier.
My new H1B has more than 6 months of validity period.
One thing which I forgot to mention earlier is that when new Employer "B" did the H1B transfer (June 2007) from Employer "A" - the I-797 receipt # of Employer "B" came out of to be different from I-797 receipt # of Employer "A"?
Shouldn't the I-797 receipt #'s for Employer "A" and Employer "B" should be SAME as it's just an H1B transfer???
Employer "A" I-797 receipt #:
EAC - XXX-XXXX
I-797 valid : 0ct' 2009
Employer "B" I-797 receipt #:
WAC - XXX-XXXX
I-797 valid: June' 2010
As I-797 receipt # gets printed on the H1B visa in the Passport, does having a different I-797 receipt # (of Employer "B") affects anything at port of entry?
Appreciate your help!
more...
makeup Victoria Beckham without
another one
07-26 10:49 AM
IV core-
Should we lobby Cornyn to break this into two amendments.. one for unused visas.. and other for increasing the number of H1's. I think we have lost out on many occasions because of H1 increase request. I am sure proponents of H1 increase by this time will understand this request.
Should we lobby Cornyn to break this into two amendments.. one for unused visas.. and other for increasing the number of H1's. I think we have lost out on many occasions because of H1 increase request. I am sure proponents of H1 increase by this time will understand this request.
girlfriend Victoria Beckham debuted a
dionysus
01-28 08:31 PM
I just applied for a PIO card for my daughter. I did not even know that there was any other option available.
hairstyles Victoria Beckham
mmanurker
08-11 11:57 AM
Done..
EB3-I, PD: Dec2003
EB3-I, PD: Dec2003
reverendflash
10-21 01:50 AM
I bow to all ya'll... :) You guys make my stuff look like a 3rd grader just threw up... :P
::bows, realizing he has 2 different colored socks on::
Rev:elderly:
::bows, realizing he has 2 different colored socks on::
Rev:elderly:
brb2
03-26 08:58 PM
The worst thing about TOI is that they routinely censor out on-line posts which are critical of their article/opinion. Since then I have stopped posting anything on TOI. On-line editors seem to be control freaks.
0 comments:
Post a Comment