newuser
08-17 12:10 PM
For renewal they did not even ask me for any documentation. Renewed online, went to DMV and got it for 4 years.
I agree with ashkam. If you renew online, you can get it for 4 years. But if you go in person to DMV, they will issue based in EAD.
I agree with ashkam. If you renew online, you can get it for 4 years. But if you go in person to DMV, they will issue based in EAD.
wallpaper Salli Richardson-Whitfield
Madhuri
02-25 11:11 AM
You can get EAD and AP when you apply for I 485. After you get EAD you can apply for SSN. Looks like you and your mom have not yet applied for I-485. If that's the case, then unfortunately you won't be eligible for FAFSA as per my knowledge. I may be wrong.
GC_SUCK
11-02 11:03 AM
As per my knowledge, GC thru employment is for future job position, i.e. Once your GC is approved you should do the job in that area.
Plz. correct if I am wrong.
My company has filed one of my Labor (stuck in DBEC) from MN, while I am working in Texas from Last five years.
Plz. correct if I am wrong.
My company has filed one of my Labor (stuck in DBEC) from MN, while I am working in Texas from Last five years.
2011 Salli Richardson Gallery
enver
06-13 03:27 PM
I got my LC two days ago apply 245i 05-26-01.On my LC it says B2 does this mean EB2 and whats my current status can I apply for 485i please advise me thakyou all.
more...
Saralayar
01-13 10:44 PM
Received I140 Approved Documents using FOI Act.
I use to suffer from my rough Employer (Desi), who never used to give me any of my Immigration Documents including Approved H1 dosument. I asked him to give atleast my H1 document so that I can go for Visa Stamping. He is such a bloody rough and he wants me to stay with him as bonded labor. I used to beg my Salary every month and never use to get my payment what I need to receive.
Meanwhile, I heard about FOI (Freedom of Information Act) and applied for it in 7 months back for the Approved I140 Documents. I applied for it and forget. To my surprise I received all the I140 related Approved documents yesterday evening. I have already changed that rough Employer without Approved H1 Notice. Now, I am very happy person working for a nice and decent Employer.
Thanks to all supporters/friends who work in these forums providing Information for the benefit of other people.
How long it took for you to get a copy of your I-140?. Did you get the copies of your Labor certifcation details too?. Was your case filed in PERM?. I appreciate your reply in advance.
I use to suffer from my rough Employer (Desi), who never used to give me any of my Immigration Documents including Approved H1 dosument. I asked him to give atleast my H1 document so that I can go for Visa Stamping. He is such a bloody rough and he wants me to stay with him as bonded labor. I used to beg my Salary every month and never use to get my payment what I need to receive.
Meanwhile, I heard about FOI (Freedom of Information Act) and applied for it in 7 months back for the Approved I140 Documents. I applied for it and forget. To my surprise I received all the I140 related Approved documents yesterday evening. I have already changed that rough Employer without Approved H1 Notice. Now, I am very happy person working for a nice and decent Employer.
Thanks to all supporters/friends who work in these forums providing Information for the benefit of other people.
How long it took for you to get a copy of your I-140?. Did you get the copies of your Labor certifcation details too?. Was your case filed in PERM?. I appreciate your reply in advance.
Libra
10-23 01:43 PM
My I-140 pending over a year finally got approved. got an RFE a2p and replied on 4th of oct. approval date 22 oct.
good luck guys.
good luck guys.
more...
paskal
12-21 11:12 AM
hope to have the calls set up soon
details will be posted here
will try to pm all responders too
plesae do check this thread in the coming days
please also continue to post here if you are interested in joining in
Thanks!
details will be posted here
will try to pm all responders too
plesae do check this thread in the coming days
please also continue to post here if you are interested in joining in
Thanks!
2010 salli richardson photos.
ash27
04-02 09:55 PM
Thanks Ams. Do you see any issues using AC21 to move to companies like TekSystems? Also, do you have any information on some of the new provisions in the pipeline.
more...
hibhagya
05-15 12:03 PM
Great job and hope the current immigrations bill will pass this year.
hair Salli Richardson-Whitfield
sina
04-16 10:28 AM
Hi Hope2007,
Did you talk to your attorney? How were you able to do so?
My attorney says I can do so, I have asked him how.
Our corporate office handles all and I do not have any information about this. I hope my attorney is correct and I do not find myself in trouble after I change location.
Please post hope2007 if you know how this is possible.
Thanks
Did you talk to your attorney? How were you able to do so?
My attorney says I can do so, I have asked him how.
Our corporate office handles all and I do not have any information about this. I hope my attorney is correct and I do not find myself in trouble after I change location.
Please post hope2007 if you know how this is possible.
Thanks
more...
sbvw76
04-21 03:13 PM
depends on whether you are on L1B or L1A. On L1A - i have seen many GCs getting approved (from 140 filing to GC in hand) in 6 months or less.
of course - your lawyer and/or employer needs to ascertain whether your role here and also in the country where you were employed by same employer qualifies you for EB1C filing or not.......
Of course, this is not legal advice but only anecdotal experience
If you are in L1A, your company can file in EB1 which is current for all countries. If you are in L1B, then go for H1B. Because Only H1B can be extended beyond 6 years.
of course - your lawyer and/or employer needs to ascertain whether your role here and also in the country where you were employed by same employer qualifies you for EB1C filing or not.......
Of course, this is not legal advice but only anecdotal experience
If you are in L1A, your company can file in EB1 which is current for all countries. If you are in L1B, then go for H1B. Because Only H1B can be extended beyond 6 years.
hot Eureka: Salli Richardson-
akhilmahajan
11-16 08:29 AM
We are actively meeting with lawmakers across Southern California in OC, LA and San Diego. New members, please sign in to our local chapter, details are in my signature. Join in on local lawmakers meetings and help in raising awareness of our issues. We have experienced members in our group who can provide guidance and answer all your questions if you have never done anything like this before. We do need active members in various constituencies though, to help us reach out to all the lawmakers in our region. Read about our local lobbying activities on Southern California yahoo groups and perhaps you could contribute something to our efforts.
If you are interested in meeting lawmakers please contact your state chapters, as they can help you in setting up an appointment. But before you do that you need to remember few things:-
1. Firstly, you need to have your contact information updated.
2. Secondly, you can only meet lawmaker on a weekday, so be ready to take a half day.
3. Thirdly, this is very important, you yourself need to be very well educated on the issue, before you go and try to educate them.
4. IV can help you and guide you and also provide material.
Come on folks, lets make up our mind and go over it.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
If you are interested in meeting lawmakers please contact your state chapters, as they can help you in setting up an appointment. But before you do that you need to remember few things:-
1. Firstly, you need to have your contact information updated.
2. Secondly, you can only meet lawmaker on a weekday, so be ready to take a half day.
3. Thirdly, this is very important, you yourself need to be very well educated on the issue, before you go and try to educate them.
4. IV can help you and guide you and also provide material.
Come on folks, lets make up our mind and go over it.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
more...
house Salli Richardson Gallery
Templarian
11-25 01:17 AM
Just wait till the end and vote for the one that's closest to winning.You probably noticed, but that's what he is doing. :dilbert:
Also, good to see people like Stargate and get that reference.
Also, good to see people like Stargate and get that reference.
tattoo Salli Richardson wore a dress
dc4opera
05-18 11:27 PM
I need some advice from the people on this board.
My labor certification was recently approved via PERM. My employer will soon be signing the paperwork to file the I-140 with INS. My contract with him expires in February 2007, and he wants me to continue working for him beyond that. I, however, have expressed my desire NOT to stay with him any longer than I need to. Obviously, I will need to stay until 6 months have passed from the filing of my I-485 for portability to kick in.
Because of this, he wants me to WAIT until January 2007 to file my I-485. This way he is assured that I will be working for him until June 2007. My question is, does he have any right to coerce me to wait until January 2007 to file the I-485?
I initially agreed to this delay in filing because I was under the impression that BOTH the I-140 and I-485 were to be filed by the employer, and that I-485 processing took about 6 months. Now that I have learned that the I-485 is to be filed by me and that I-485 processing can take more than a year, are there any downsides to me filing the I-485 earlier than January 2007 WITHOUT MY EMPLOYER KNOWING?
I realize that "honesty is the best policy" but the situation is truly untenable for me and I feel that he is purposely delaying the processing of my INS papers to keep me at his mercy. Another factor to consider is that the lawyer we will be using for the I-140 will be the same one who will file my I-485. Can I invoke attorney-client privilege with regards to the I-485 so that they cannot tell my employer that I filed it earlier than he wanted? For that matter, can I use a different lawyer to file the I-485 that the one who filed the I-140?
Any opinions and suggestions regarding this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much and good luck to all!
My labor certification was recently approved via PERM. My employer will soon be signing the paperwork to file the I-140 with INS. My contract with him expires in February 2007, and he wants me to continue working for him beyond that. I, however, have expressed my desire NOT to stay with him any longer than I need to. Obviously, I will need to stay until 6 months have passed from the filing of my I-485 for portability to kick in.
Because of this, he wants me to WAIT until January 2007 to file my I-485. This way he is assured that I will be working for him until June 2007. My question is, does he have any right to coerce me to wait until January 2007 to file the I-485?
I initially agreed to this delay in filing because I was under the impression that BOTH the I-140 and I-485 were to be filed by the employer, and that I-485 processing took about 6 months. Now that I have learned that the I-485 is to be filed by me and that I-485 processing can take more than a year, are there any downsides to me filing the I-485 earlier than January 2007 WITHOUT MY EMPLOYER KNOWING?
I realize that "honesty is the best policy" but the situation is truly untenable for me and I feel that he is purposely delaying the processing of my INS papers to keep me at his mercy. Another factor to consider is that the lawyer we will be using for the I-140 will be the same one who will file my I-485. Can I invoke attorney-client privilege with regards to the I-485 so that they cannot tell my employer that I filed it earlier than he wanted? For that matter, can I use a different lawyer to file the I-485 that the one who filed the I-140?
Any opinions and suggestions regarding this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much and good luck to all!
more...
pictures Salli Richardson-Whitfield
we_can
01-29 04:49 PM
i just noticed your post. i am from portland, oregon. so count me in also. i had posted a message on the orgon state chapter a while ago and have not had a single response yet. Inspite of the large numbers of members in seattle and portland areas, i too am sad to this kind of inactivity and non-response.
members from northwest (oregon, washington and idaho): This state chapter initiative is very important for our efforts. We are doing this for ourselves and I am pretty sure that these efforts will not harm your career or work in anyway. So, please do reply so that we could all get active and show that we in the Northwest can work for our situations and for iv's efforts in our own way.
we_can
members from northwest (oregon, washington and idaho): This state chapter initiative is very important for our efforts. We are doing this for ourselves and I am pretty sure that these efforts will not harm your career or work in anyway. So, please do reply so that we could all get active and show that we in the Northwest can work for our situations and for iv's efforts in our own way.
we_can
dresses Salli Richardson - Eureka
nousername
04-07 01:48 PM
Thanks for a quick explanation.. So basically we are hosed if we leave our employer on a bad note and he decides to use our labor for someone else.
Follow up questions:
1. If I understand this correctly then simply revoking the labor won't kill the I-485 application but the employer needs to substitute the original application for another employee.
2. Also, by pre-July 2007 you mean people who filed their labor or I-485 before July 2007, or both?
3. Will this affect people who applied (and approved) for their labor before July'07 but filed their I-485 during / after July'07 fiasco i.e. majority of IV members.
4. If people in point # 3 are not affected then are they off the leash?
Thanks.
In very basic terms.
If you have left your employer after filing AC21(140 approved and 485 pending for 180 days), your employer then revoked your 140 and used the original labor to file 140 for another person(substitution). Another person has applied for 485.
Then original applicant's 485 will be denied.....because AAO is saying One Labor can be used only for one Green Card....
Mind you this is all relates to pre July 2007.
Follow up questions:
1. If I understand this correctly then simply revoking the labor won't kill the I-485 application but the employer needs to substitute the original application for another employee.
2. Also, by pre-July 2007 you mean people who filed their labor or I-485 before July 2007, or both?
3. Will this affect people who applied (and approved) for their labor before July'07 but filed their I-485 during / after July'07 fiasco i.e. majority of IV members.
4. If people in point # 3 are not affected then are they off the leash?
Thanks.
In very basic terms.
If you have left your employer after filing AC21(140 approved and 485 pending for 180 days), your employer then revoked your 140 and used the original labor to file 140 for another person(substitution). Another person has applied for 485.
Then original applicant's 485 will be denied.....because AAO is saying One Labor can be used only for one Green Card....
Mind you this is all relates to pre July 2007.
more...
makeup Salli Richardson on quot;Eurekaquot;
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
girlfriend The lovely Salli Richardson
meridiani.planum
03-06 02:28 PM
My Company is switching me to EAD and will cancel my H1. Saying that H1 is more expensive to maintain... They'll pay for my EAD renewal also... Anyway don't have a choice here unless I switch...
My question is that my lawyer told that Iam allowed to work up to 120 days post EAD expiry if EAD renewal is delayed... They'll file 90 days before current EAD expiry..
Does this sound okay.. Anyone heard anywhere that its allowed to work upto 120 days of EAD expiry pending EAD renewal??
you cannot work past EAD expiry. Does not matter if renewal is delayed. You need to stop working.
You can file upto 120 days in advance of current EAD expiry. 90 days seems a little tight looking at demand (tons of July filers) but will probably be ok. Dont cut it any closer than that.
My question is that my lawyer told that Iam allowed to work up to 120 days post EAD expiry if EAD renewal is delayed... They'll file 90 days before current EAD expiry..
Does this sound okay.. Anyone heard anywhere that its allowed to work upto 120 days of EAD expiry pending EAD renewal??
you cannot work past EAD expiry. Does not matter if renewal is delayed. You need to stop working.
You can file upto 120 days in advance of current EAD expiry. 90 days seems a little tight looking at demand (tons of July filers) but will probably be ok. Dont cut it any closer than that.
hairstyles Salli Richardson
rsayed
02-02 09:37 AM
Best Wishes for a fabulous future! Congratulations!
oliTwist
01-10 08:46 PM
I had gone through the layoff thing during 2001-2002 time. Maybe, I might be mistaken. But I feel that time it was even worse.
sledge_hammer
05-14 04:12 PM
Not too many EB2 Indians will benifit from this movement???
No comments:
Post a Comment