roseball
03-31 11:01 PM
I have been working in the USA with an H1B Visa since Nov, 2007; this until August 2009 when I was laid off by my employer/sponsor (Company A). Last time I entered the US was August 13, 2009 (I was admitted until Sep 23, 2010 day the H1B visa expires). Last pay stub August 2009.
I dedicated myself to get a new job (I didn't know at the time that my staying represented a huge risk for me). I finally got a job offer on November 15, 2009. It is an international group who just opened an office in Miami.
Holidays, all the foreign management start up procedures, along with the fact that the lawyer was very slow, made that the actual application date for I-129 March 1st.2010. Imagine that. We required premium processing.
On January 15, I asked my lawyer if considering the delay of the new employer (it is a new business here in the US), and all other issues, it was better for me just to leave the country and simple apply again on April 2010. He said no.
On March 1, 2010 (effective date of the application) I started to formally work for company B -I just got my first pay stub. On March 22, 2009, USCIS sent a request for further evidence. The lawyer has the letter -I enclosed- in his desk since last Thursday. Response is due May 6, 2010.
As you can see USCIS requires, among other matters, pay stubs from January 1 2010 to present (from Company A). For 2009 we filed my W2 and 2009 income tax return. They didn't ask for 2009.
What should I do? Should I say that I don't have the pay stubs (implicit recognition I didn't maintain status), explaining that I indeed got an offer, and all the reasons for the delay?, or try to ask my ex employer if they give me a letter indicating I'm still her employee (I doubt they will do that, but I can try).
What are my options/risks; deportation for instance? Should I leave the country immediately?
You are in some serious trouble here.....You have been out-of-status since the time you were laid-off by company A. Though they didn't ask you for your pay stubs for the period of Sep'09 to Dec'09, it doesn't mean the illegal stay is pardoned. Not trying to scare you but you could be potentially banned for overstaying beyond 180 days....Moreover, you shouldn't have started working for company B since you were not maintaining a valid H1 status when your current H1 was filed. Your lawyer should have known better and given you advise based on your situation. Now don't make it worse by providing fraudulent letters claiming employment proof from your ex-employer. You might still have a slim chance to defend your case based on the fact that you had a job offer in hand, and the employer wanted to file your H1 but they couldn't do so earlier because of start-up procedures. I don't think that reason will excuse you from overstaying or not filing on time, but if the IO is generous, you might have a chance to get your H1 approved without an attached I-94, in which case you will have to go out of the country with the approval notice and get a H1 visa stamp and re-enter to be able to start working and gain back your H1 status. In the meantime, do consult with a reputed attorney and get advise on what would be the next steps.....Good luck.
I dedicated myself to get a new job (I didn't know at the time that my staying represented a huge risk for me). I finally got a job offer on November 15, 2009. It is an international group who just opened an office in Miami.
Holidays, all the foreign management start up procedures, along with the fact that the lawyer was very slow, made that the actual application date for I-129 March 1st.2010. Imagine that. We required premium processing.
On January 15, I asked my lawyer if considering the delay of the new employer (it is a new business here in the US), and all other issues, it was better for me just to leave the country and simple apply again on April 2010. He said no.
On March 1, 2010 (effective date of the application) I started to formally work for company B -I just got my first pay stub. On March 22, 2009, USCIS sent a request for further evidence. The lawyer has the letter -I enclosed- in his desk since last Thursday. Response is due May 6, 2010.
As you can see USCIS requires, among other matters, pay stubs from January 1 2010 to present (from Company A). For 2009 we filed my W2 and 2009 income tax return. They didn't ask for 2009.
What should I do? Should I say that I don't have the pay stubs (implicit recognition I didn't maintain status), explaining that I indeed got an offer, and all the reasons for the delay?, or try to ask my ex employer if they give me a letter indicating I'm still her employee (I doubt they will do that, but I can try).
What are my options/risks; deportation for instance? Should I leave the country immediately?
You are in some serious trouble here.....You have been out-of-status since the time you were laid-off by company A. Though they didn't ask you for your pay stubs for the period of Sep'09 to Dec'09, it doesn't mean the illegal stay is pardoned. Not trying to scare you but you could be potentially banned for overstaying beyond 180 days....Moreover, you shouldn't have started working for company B since you were not maintaining a valid H1 status when your current H1 was filed. Your lawyer should have known better and given you advise based on your situation. Now don't make it worse by providing fraudulent letters claiming employment proof from your ex-employer. You might still have a slim chance to defend your case based on the fact that you had a job offer in hand, and the employer wanted to file your H1 but they couldn't do so earlier because of start-up procedures. I don't think that reason will excuse you from overstaying or not filing on time, but if the IO is generous, you might have a chance to get your H1 approved without an attached I-94, in which case you will have to go out of the country with the approval notice and get a H1 visa stamp and re-enter to be able to start working and gain back your H1 status. In the meantime, do consult with a reputed attorney and get advise on what would be the next steps.....Good luck.
wallpaper smiley face gif.
jack_b_uta
06-21 09:37 AM
IV core members have been in media MANY times.
Aman Kapoor(Fox News, Washington Post), Shilpa Ghodgaonkar(Washington Post, South Asia Insider), Siva Singaram(NBC), Pratik Dakwala (FOX 2-Bay area) are just to quote a few.
None of these guys have been deported, fired, stoned or died. They are alive, well, working and proud to have been there to show up when needed.
We are legal immigrants. Even if you are illegal, you shouldnt be afraid to speak up. If legal hi-skills educated immigrants shy away from exercising constitutional rights of speaking up, then what can we say?
I would be happy to speak up but just an FYI, we donot have any constitutional rights. We are second class citizens at the best, and slaves in a different form at worst.And that is not ranting of someone who has been in line for half a decade. Here's the proof.
I love skeet shooting but the law prevents me (or anyone who is on a "nonimmigrant" visa) from buying a gun. Thats second amendment rights that were awarded to everyone living in the USA.
JACK
Aman Kapoor(Fox News, Washington Post), Shilpa Ghodgaonkar(Washington Post, South Asia Insider), Siva Singaram(NBC), Pratik Dakwala (FOX 2-Bay area) are just to quote a few.
None of these guys have been deported, fired, stoned or died. They are alive, well, working and proud to have been there to show up when needed.
We are legal immigrants. Even if you are illegal, you shouldnt be afraid to speak up. If legal hi-skills educated immigrants shy away from exercising constitutional rights of speaking up, then what can we say?
I would be happy to speak up but just an FYI, we donot have any constitutional rights. We are second class citizens at the best, and slaves in a different form at worst.And that is not ranting of someone who has been in line for half a decade. Here's the proof.
I love skeet shooting but the law prevents me (or anyone who is on a "nonimmigrant" visa) from buying a gun. Thats second amendment rights that were awarded to everyone living in the USA.
JACK
yabadaba
09-01 11:43 AM
i m a big fan of the bee and ragz4u and sunjoshi
of course these daysi m interacting only with pappu...getting his "kangi" all set up
of course these daysi m interacting only with pappu...getting his "kangi" all set up
2011 Cute smiley face packages.
JazzByTheBay
02-23 01:17 PM
+1 on that.
The Hritik Roshan, Govinda and Daniel Craig (James Bond) images in the user profile section of each post in forum threads are quite distracting. What's the point of this feature, anyways?
I would like to put a face to every alias I come across, but not Hritik's, Govinda's or Daniel Craig's even if the resemblance with you is shocking! :)
Just removed the small image I had in my signature as well.
jazz
I am not sure about others, but since IV changed the look of this webpage, something is discouraging me from being as active as i was before. I gave myself sometime to adjust but that does not seem to happen.
Admins, please do some stats on hits, number of posts by users etc and see how the new look impacted the site activity?
Two points that I am not a fan of:
1) The front page top 10 forum items still need to be improved. We need complete text display (wrapped if long), the tooltip is not working. I do not want to mouse over every thread to read it completely.
2) User images (i know i have one myself) are making the webpage cluttered and distracting from the real content.
The Hritik Roshan, Govinda and Daniel Craig (James Bond) images in the user profile section of each post in forum threads are quite distracting. What's the point of this feature, anyways?
I would like to put a face to every alias I come across, but not Hritik's, Govinda's or Daniel Craig's even if the resemblance with you is shocking! :)
Just removed the small image I had in my signature as well.
jazz
I am not sure about others, but since IV changed the look of this webpage, something is discouraging me from being as active as i was before. I gave myself sometime to adjust but that does not seem to happen.
Admins, please do some stats on hits, number of posts by users etc and see how the new look impacted the site activity?
Two points that I am not a fan of:
1) The front page top 10 forum items still need to be improved. We need complete text display (wrapped if long), the tooltip is not working. I do not want to mouse over every thread to read it completely.
2) User images (i know i have one myself) are making the webpage cluttered and distracting from the real content.
more...
GCapplicant
06-30 01:14 PM
Thanks pappu...
Siddharta
01-11 09:11 PM
I dont think u'd be barred from entering that country again on a tourist visa but another PR? For sure u can forget that.
Why is that? What if I have a job offer from a canadian company and they sponsor me?
Why is that? What if I have a job offer from a canadian company and they sponsor me?
more...
rahulpaper
11-17 07:48 AM
Your priority date should be prior to cutoff date in visa bulletin to file a 485.
Also...your priority date should be prior to cutoff date in visa bulletin for you to get final approval (visa number and green card).
The administrative processing (FP/NameCheck etc) continue if the cutoff date retrogresses after one has filed 485 but the final approval will not happen untill your PD is greater than cutoff date in visa bulletin.
I have applied for my 485 in July because then the PD's were current. Now the PD's are moved back . Does that i will get my GC delayed too. Does the processing of 485 is related to PD's . I thought the PD's are only related to the dates when you can apply for 485 not processing. Correct me if i am wrong.if PD's are also related to getting GC's then what the I-485 processing dates?
Also...your priority date should be prior to cutoff date in visa bulletin for you to get final approval (visa number and green card).
The administrative processing (FP/NameCheck etc) continue if the cutoff date retrogresses after one has filed 485 but the final approval will not happen untill your PD is greater than cutoff date in visa bulletin.
I have applied for my 485 in July because then the PD's were current. Now the PD's are moved back . Does that i will get my GC delayed too. Does the processing of 485 is related to PD's . I thought the PD's are only related to the dates when you can apply for 485 not processing. Correct me if i am wrong.if PD's are also related to getting GC's then what the I-485 processing dates?
2010 This balloon has a cute smiley
looivy
08-06 12:55 AM
What is Sessions smoking?
more...
chandrajp
04-28 09:35 AM
You cannot change employer unfortunately with just I-140 approved. You need to apply for I-485, be with the current employer for 180 days and then you are eligible
hair happy face cartoon pictures
ak_2006
04-20 02:20 PM
It's really heart breaking news.
May God bless his soul and complete all his wishes.
I went to the site, but it not accepting Donations now as they reached the target.
May God bless his soul and complete all his wishes.
I went to the site, but it not accepting Donations now as they reached the target.
more...
redgreen
07-15 08:10 PM
Why blame USCIS when you classify yourself as EB3!
Your profile says you are EB3. I hope it was put by you not by USCIS.
May be your I-140 was also for EB3, a misclassification by you. Do you remember?
Your profile says you are EB3. I hope it was put by you not by USCIS.
May be your I-140 was also for EB3, a misclassification by you. Do you remember?
hot cute pics of smiley faces.
HopeSprings
07-29 12:15 AM
Geez, how hard can it be!!
Read the lines.
Prereqs:
1. I-485 applied for EB-2 India
2. PD after Jun 1st 2006 (i.e. ,PD is not current)
3. There was an LUD on 07/27
Only then, reply to the thread!!
SunnySurya with date after PD Jun 1st 2006 replied yes, which means this update has nothing to do with the PD being current.
I have PD of Nov 2006, 140-Approved, 485-July 2nd. I have not got any LUD on any of my applications. So, this soft LUD might not be for everybody.
Read the lines.
Prereqs:
1. I-485 applied for EB-2 India
2. PD after Jun 1st 2006 (i.e. ,PD is not current)
3. There was an LUD on 07/27
Only then, reply to the thread!!
SunnySurya with date after PD Jun 1st 2006 replied yes, which means this update has nothing to do with the PD being current.
I have PD of Nov 2006, 140-Approved, 485-July 2nd. I have not got any LUD on any of my applications. So, this soft LUD might not be for everybody.
more...
house cartoon happy face pictures.
prout02
07-30 12:26 PM
I have read in this forum frequent questions about this - legality/enforceability of noncompete clause. Here's a recent court decision from Kansas. It talks about physician practices. No idea if it is applicable to other professions. But the four factors cited in the decision seem relevant.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
tattoo cartoon cute smiley face
svn
05-10 04:39 PM
Does anyone know what is the official term for your legal status if you are on EAD and no longer on H-1? I am trying to fill up an online form for opening an IRA and it asks whether I am
a) Citizen of US or Permanent Resident or
b) Citizen of Another Country and specifically, under what status (but only lists B, H, etc as valid visas - there is not EAD visa category!)
Of course, I am not a Permanent Resident yet but I don't believe I qualify under H visa anymore either since my H1 is not valid any longer.
Thanks for you help.
a) Citizen of US or Permanent Resident or
b) Citizen of Another Country and specifically, under what status (but only lists B, H, etc as valid visas - there is not EAD visa category!)
Of course, I am not a Permanent Resident yet but I don't believe I qualify under H visa anymore either since my H1 is not valid any longer.
Thanks for you help.
more...
pictures cute pics of smiley faces.
immilaw
12-14 12:37 PM
It was easy last year to not pass the bill. We had a Republican President & Congress and Democrats kept on blaming republicans for not doing anything. I think this time the ball will be in the Democrat's court to pass the CIR and send to the President for signature. They won't be able to blame it on republicans.
dresses Smiley Faces Backgrounds and
trojan
05-02 06:45 PM
You can write a balance-transfer-cheque to your own name (which you can deposit to your checkings account) of amount upto your credit limit on that credit card.
I had 25k credit limit on my credit card, so i could balance-transfer that much. usually if you have a 3-4 years credit history, you can call up the credit card company and ask them to raise your credit limit.
Balance transfers - 0% APR are generally good for 9 months to 1 year loan only. So you will have to repay within a year. But you can keep doing that for 2-3 years till you pay off your complete loan.
I had 25k credit limit on my credit card, so i could balance-transfer that much. usually if you have a 3-4 years credit history, you can call up the credit card company and ask them to raise your credit limit.
Balance transfers - 0% APR are generally good for 9 months to 1 year loan only. So you will have to repay within a year. But you can keep doing that for 2-3 years till you pay off your complete loan.
more...
makeup offered in – smiley faces,
hoolahoous
07-15 01:43 PM
thats weird!
watchout buddy, some chick working at USCIS might be attracted to you and wants to get your new pics for every application you make.... :D
dang !! if know the chick, I will send my video next time.. maybe I will get green card !!
actually some people I know recently got their green card even though their PD was not current.. I will ask them if they sent their video.. LOL !!
But it is really alarming.. USCIS seems to be making rules on the fly.. what next ? you need to send paper applications in different colors next time ?
It is really not very funny when you have to leave your job because your EAD god delayed because of this new 'rule'.. happened to my cousin. he had to leave the job because EAD got delayed. not only that, since he is working at hospital, his residency got extended for delayed period when he was not working.. not fun ..
vin13
in cousin's RFE the reason by USCIS exactly said that they had used the same photo in visa so they need to send new photos. My attorney also said recently he has seen USCIS asking for 'unused' photos in most of the cases, that's why he is requesting new photos from all his clients.
watchout buddy, some chick working at USCIS might be attracted to you and wants to get your new pics for every application you make.... :D
dang !! if know the chick, I will send my video next time.. maybe I will get green card !!
actually some people I know recently got their green card even though their PD was not current.. I will ask them if they sent their video.. LOL !!
But it is really alarming.. USCIS seems to be making rules on the fly.. what next ? you need to send paper applications in different colors next time ?
It is really not very funny when you have to leave your job because your EAD god delayed because of this new 'rule'.. happened to my cousin. he had to leave the job because EAD got delayed. not only that, since he is working at hospital, his residency got extended for delayed period when he was not working.. not fun ..
vin13
in cousin's RFE the reason by USCIS exactly said that they had used the same photo in visa so they need to send new photos. My attorney also said recently he has seen USCIS asking for 'unused' photos in most of the cases, that's why he is requesting new photos from all his clients.
girlfriend Cute dog smiley face
coolmanasip
10-19 03:23 PM
If they accepted the expedite request, you should get the EAD in your hands within 2-3 weeks.
You cannot work with an expired EAD. Legally, you can work from the day when the renewal EAD gets approved. Some employers insist the production of physical EAD to allow us to continue working. Some employers (few) allow you to work, if the EAD application has been approved. It is not advisable/legal to work when your current EAD is expired and the new one has not yet approved.
You do not have to quit your job. You can go on leave/vacation, if you have leave balance. Else you can go on "Leave without Pay". You do not have to leave the country in no circumstances, because your status is "Adjustment of Stats/I-485 Pending" which in no way gets affected by the expiry of the EAD. If it is not going to come on time, you just have to enjoy one or two weeks of vacation.
Talk to your HR regarding the different options.
Are you sure about the leave? Are you sure if we can use the leave accrued? I was under the impression that you had to go off the payrol ? Please confirm.
You cannot work with an expired EAD. Legally, you can work from the day when the renewal EAD gets approved. Some employers insist the production of physical EAD to allow us to continue working. Some employers (few) allow you to work, if the EAD application has been approved. It is not advisable/legal to work when your current EAD is expired and the new one has not yet approved.
You do not have to quit your job. You can go on leave/vacation, if you have leave balance. Else you can go on "Leave without Pay". You do not have to leave the country in no circumstances, because your status is "Adjustment of Stats/I-485 Pending" which in no way gets affected by the expiry of the EAD. If it is not going to come on time, you just have to enjoy one or two weeks of vacation.
Talk to your HR regarding the different options.
Are you sure about the leave? Are you sure if we can use the leave accrued? I was under the impression that you had to go off the payrol ? Please confirm.
hairstyles cute pics of smiley faces.
seeker_gc
06-18 12:31 PM
Thanks all of you. I'll keep you posted once my medical is done.
GCBy3000
02-06 05:25 PM
Make sure your wife gets new H4 with valid i94. Entering with old H1 stamping does not hurt as long as it is not expired. But you should be careful not to continue with it without thinking about H4.
You might have valid H1 with new company with valid i94. You are safe until next extension, but your wife will go out of status once her I94 expires. Better to talk with your company attorney and get the H4 transfer process going.
You might have valid H1 with new company with valid i94. You are safe until next extension, but your wife will go out of status once her I94 expires. Better to talk with your company attorney and get the H4 transfer process going.
anand622
03-24 11:08 AM
Even I am in the current situation. we can discuss or email
i have spoken to a couple lawyers so we can exchange options
i have spoken to a couple lawyers so we can exchange options
No comments:
Post a Comment