morpheus
04-02 09:44 PM
So if (for example) an H1B worked in the US for a few weeks before their visa became available, are they technically eligible for this? Or perhaps they were out of status for a week or two between jobs? I'm sure many H1's might have been in this situation. It's unclear who this applies to.
I just read the Specter amendments to 2454 and I can't see where in 218D or 602 it says the alien must have been here illegally. Can someone quote that part? All I can see is this requirement in 601.
`(1) PRESENCE; EMPLOYMENT.--The alien establishes that the alien--
``(A) was physically present in the United States before January 7, 2004; and
``(B) was employed in the United States before January 7, 2004, and has been employed in the United States since that date.
I read one summary of the bill that claims 'The alien also must acknowledge, under oath, that the alien is unlawfully present and subject to removal or deportation.' but this is at the time of application - not in the past. So technically this could still apply to many people. I haven't been able to find this clause in the actual bill though.
From what I have read, if this bill passes it may just turn out that an H1B could quit their employer tomorrow, go and join another employer without filing an H1 transfer and file under 218D in the next year. Since they are technically eligible for 218D at this point, they could move straight to a green card without the current massive backlogs. Also, the 218D status has job mobility, and no LCA is required.
Can anyone refute this?
I just read the Specter amendments to 2454 and I can't see where in 218D or 602 it says the alien must have been here illegally. Can someone quote that part? All I can see is this requirement in 601.
`(1) PRESENCE; EMPLOYMENT.--The alien establishes that the alien--
``(A) was physically present in the United States before January 7, 2004; and
``(B) was employed in the United States before January 7, 2004, and has been employed in the United States since that date.
I read one summary of the bill that claims 'The alien also must acknowledge, under oath, that the alien is unlawfully present and subject to removal or deportation.' but this is at the time of application - not in the past. So technically this could still apply to many people. I haven't been able to find this clause in the actual bill though.
From what I have read, if this bill passes it may just turn out that an H1B could quit their employer tomorrow, go and join another employer without filing an H1 transfer and file under 218D in the next year. Since they are technically eligible for 218D at this point, they could move straight to a green card without the current massive backlogs. Also, the 218D status has job mobility, and no LCA is required.
Can anyone refute this?
wallpaper taylor swift song quotes.
kartikiran
11-09 05:21 PM
Done.
I would have liked another field which asks how much money has been moved away from USA due to uncertainty with the wait for green card.
Personally, I wish I had parked my savings money in USA, but due to green card limbo I ended up moving all that money outside to another country to invest.
Only reason, I am not sure where my life would end without knowing an answer to my green card application.
I think this is a key point which is missing in the survey.
I would have liked another field which asks how much money has been moved away from USA due to uncertainty with the wait for green card.
Personally, I wish I had parked my savings money in USA, but due to green card limbo I ended up moving all that money outside to another country to invest.
Only reason, I am not sure where my life would end without knowing an answer to my green card application.
I think this is a key point which is missing in the survey.
Berkeleybee
05-18 05:17 PM
Will we be able to find by the end of 2006 wether CIR bill is passed or not ?
Here is what Specter said: (Apr 24, 2006)
quoting Specter "And after this meeting, I'm confident we'll get it done, out of the Senate by Memorial Day and to the president's desk, as he's asked for, before the end of the year."
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...&postcount=336
Here is what Specter said: (Apr 24, 2006)
quoting Specter "And after this meeting, I'm confident we'll get it done, out of the Senate by Memorial Day and to the president's desk, as he's asked for, before the end of the year."
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...&postcount=336
2011 To puchase quot;7 String Guitarquot;
a1b2c3
02-11 11:48 PM
damn! sorry to hear that Chris, did you contact any congressmen? as for me, I need to take some vacation, this gc bug has bitten me and its hurting now.:)
more...
gsc999
04-13 11:32 AM
Lets not despair about lack of support from other organizations. We have 10K+ members now. We are gaining momentum. It won't be long before these organization come to us for support. Given the presidential election looming on the horizon, maybe some of the candidates will need endorsement from us, maybe not, who knows. Lets use this time to meet the lawmakers and educate them about our issues.
I recently called a Senate office and told them about my support for the STRIVE bill in the House and to seek their support for a similar bill in Senate. The staff members had no idea about STRIVE bill. I send them more info. they were willing to understand provided we spend the time. Now we are meeting them in person to highlight our issues in more detail. This is the best way to help ourselves. In the end, if your have to get some thing done you have to get involved. Please top lamenting lack of support. Lets not get linear about this, that unless we get support from others we won't do this. Lets focus on our own efforts.
I recently called a Senate office and told them about my support for the STRIVE bill in the House and to seek their support for a similar bill in Senate. The staff members had no idea about STRIVE bill. I send them more info. they were willing to understand provided we spend the time. Now we are meeting them in person to highlight our issues in more detail. This is the best way to help ourselves. In the end, if your have to get some thing done you have to get involved. Please top lamenting lack of support. Lets not get linear about this, that unless we get support from others we won't do this. Lets focus on our own efforts.
sertasheep
07-05 05:27 PM
syzygy, can you please update your profile with your telephone number? i'd like to talk to you about your experience with 07/02
more...
pappu
07-14 01:50 PM
This link didn't work for me either.
try
photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7644/2582/1600/chart_alert7.11.2006.gif
try
photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7644/2582/1600/chart_alert7.11.2006.gif
2010 Guitar Archive; Quotes
sanjay02
08-22 03:07 PM
Doesnt make sense to pay $2500 for retaining the lawyer, they are trying to squeeze maximum out of you. If you are changing employer ask if the new company has an immigration lawyer and you can have him for your services. If they dont have any one you can engage services of your own immigration lawyer and have the new lawyer sign the G-28 form. Also please post the name of law firm and your employer so that others can be cautious.
I am changing my employer and wanted to retain the services of legal firm representing current employer. Upon asking that I want to retain their services after I leave current employer, I have been told to pay upfront retainer fee of $2500.
- Is it normally the case? I have been told that this fee will be put in my account with the firm and used to pay the charges for the services I request.
- If with God's grace my case is approved without requiring attorney's help, is this retainer refundable in full (I have asked attorney this question and waiting for thier reply). Anybody has a similar experience.
I am changing my employer and wanted to retain the services of legal firm representing current employer. Upon asking that I want to retain their services after I leave current employer, I have been told to pay upfront retainer fee of $2500.
- Is it normally the case? I have been told that this fee will be put in my account with the firm and used to pay the charges for the services I request.
- If with God's grace my case is approved without requiring attorney's help, is this retainer refundable in full (I have asked attorney this question and waiting for thier reply). Anybody has a similar experience.
more...
cool_guy_onnet1
06-01 01:28 PM
New Immigration Bill Amendment Could Help Keep Foreign Tech Workers In U.S.
A proposal to create a dual green-card system that favors high tech talent has bi-partisan support in the Senate.
By Marianne Kolbasuk McGee
InformationWeek
May 31, 2007 04:50 PM
A bi-partisan group of U.S. senators next week is expected to introduce to the immigration reform bill an amendment that proposes to retain a pool of 140,000 employer-sponsored green cards for foreign workers seeking permanent residence in the United States.
Amendment S.1249, being co-sponsored by senators Maria Cantwell (D-Wash), John Cornyn (R-Tex.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Orrin Hatch (R-Pa.), and Robert Bennett (R-Utah) proposes that the U.S. create a dual green-card system that, in addition to a new merit-point green card system that's proposed in the main bill, would also keep an annual pool of 140,000 employer-sponsored based green cards for foreign workers.
The revised legislation also proposes the United States establish no limit on H-1B visas for foreign professionals with masters or doctoral degrees in science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM fields.
"This would set up a complementary and parallel employer-sponsored system to the merit system" said Robert Hoffman, Oracle VP of government affairs and co-chair of Compete America, a coalition of technology companies. "This system would be more like Australia's" where immigration is granted in dual programs that includes employer-based sponsorship and merit points.
By the U.S. retaining a system allowing employer-based green cards to be issued each year, businesses would have better control over the talent they'd like to keep in the U.S., say tech employers.
One of the biggest criticisms that tech employers have about the current immigration reform bill being hammered out in the Senate is the proposed merit-based green card system. The process awards individuals with points based on the person's education, skills, and other factors.
Tech companies complain that a point-based system would shift to government bureaucrats too much control about the kind of talent pool that's available to employers in U.S. Amendment S.1249 proposes retaining employer-based immigration and expanding permanent residency to those foreigners with advanced STEM degrees, said Hoffman.
The amendment also proposes eliminating caps on H-1B visas issued to foreign students who have advanced degrees from U.S. universities. Right now, in addition to the 65,000 H-1B visas issued each year by the United States, an additional 20,000 H-1B visas are available to foreign students with advanced degrees from U.S. universities. The new amendment would eliminate that annual ceiling for advanced U.S. degrees.
In addition, the amendment also proposes providing 20,000 H-1B visas annually to foreigners with advanced degrees in STEM fields from foreign schools.
"Masters and PhDs would be exempt from the cap on H-1Bs and green cards," said Hoffman.
The amendment also proposes retracting a provision in the immigration reform bill that H-1B visa holders must have degrees that match their jobs. However, under the amendment, an H-1B visa holder with a degree in mathematics could continue to apply for work in a software engineering job, even without the software engineering degree.
"We're strongly in favor of this amendment," said Hoffman. "It's the single most important amendment in this [immigration] bill," he said.
Not everyone feels the same way. In a statement, U.S tech-professional advocacy group the Programmers Guild, called the amendment "a declaration of war on American tech workers."
A proposal to create a dual green-card system that favors high tech talent has bi-partisan support in the Senate.
By Marianne Kolbasuk McGee
InformationWeek
May 31, 2007 04:50 PM
A bi-partisan group of U.S. senators next week is expected to introduce to the immigration reform bill an amendment that proposes to retain a pool of 140,000 employer-sponsored green cards for foreign workers seeking permanent residence in the United States.
Amendment S.1249, being co-sponsored by senators Maria Cantwell (D-Wash), John Cornyn (R-Tex.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Orrin Hatch (R-Pa.), and Robert Bennett (R-Utah) proposes that the U.S. create a dual green-card system that, in addition to a new merit-point green card system that's proposed in the main bill, would also keep an annual pool of 140,000 employer-sponsored based green cards for foreign workers.
The revised legislation also proposes the United States establish no limit on H-1B visas for foreign professionals with masters or doctoral degrees in science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM fields.
"This would set up a complementary and parallel employer-sponsored system to the merit system" said Robert Hoffman, Oracle VP of government affairs and co-chair of Compete America, a coalition of technology companies. "This system would be more like Australia's" where immigration is granted in dual programs that includes employer-based sponsorship and merit points.
By the U.S. retaining a system allowing employer-based green cards to be issued each year, businesses would have better control over the talent they'd like to keep in the U.S., say tech employers.
One of the biggest criticisms that tech employers have about the current immigration reform bill being hammered out in the Senate is the proposed merit-based green card system. The process awards individuals with points based on the person's education, skills, and other factors.
Tech companies complain that a point-based system would shift to government bureaucrats too much control about the kind of talent pool that's available to employers in U.S. Amendment S.1249 proposes retaining employer-based immigration and expanding permanent residency to those foreigners with advanced STEM degrees, said Hoffman.
The amendment also proposes eliminating caps on H-1B visas issued to foreign students who have advanced degrees from U.S. universities. Right now, in addition to the 65,000 H-1B visas issued each year by the United States, an additional 20,000 H-1B visas are available to foreign students with advanced degrees from U.S. universities. The new amendment would eliminate that annual ceiling for advanced U.S. degrees.
In addition, the amendment also proposes providing 20,000 H-1B visas annually to foreigners with advanced degrees in STEM fields from foreign schools.
"Masters and PhDs would be exempt from the cap on H-1Bs and green cards," said Hoffman.
The amendment also proposes retracting a provision in the immigration reform bill that H-1B visa holders must have degrees that match their jobs. However, under the amendment, an H-1B visa holder with a degree in mathematics could continue to apply for work in a software engineering job, even without the software engineering degree.
"We're strongly in favor of this amendment," said Hoffman. "It's the single most important amendment in this [immigration] bill," he said.
Not everyone feels the same way. In a statement, U.S tech-professional advocacy group the Programmers Guild, called the amendment "a declaration of war on American tech workers."
hair Guitar with quotes. this guitar is for a contest i hope i win gt;.lt;
.jpg "quotes on life, guitar,")
swapnajay
10-09 01:08 PM
Sorry to scare you in my previous reply....I did not read your question properly....
Since you are from a Non-Retrogressed Country, you may be eligible to apply for AOS. As you mentioned, you may apply I-140, I-485, I-131, and I-765 all together without any hassle. Make sure your attorney files all your applications with the right fee, since the fee structure has changed recently.
Sorry about my previous post though...
Good Luck!!
Since you are from a Non-Retrogressed Country, you may be eligible to apply for AOS. As you mentioned, you may apply I-140, I-485, I-131, and I-765 all together without any hassle. Make sure your attorney files all your applications with the right fee, since the fee structure has changed recently.
Sorry about my previous post though...
Good Luck!!
more...
GCBy3000
04-17 10:29 AM
Last time when Bill Clinton signed similar bill, it became effective immediately. So this should also be immediate.
hot taylor swift tumblr quotes.
raj2007
02-10 11:23 PM
Keeping H status for the Primary applicant (H1B) may sometime act as 'failover pair' ... But in these days of Highend Retrogression (specially if you are from India/China/Mexico) getting a GC would take 7-10 years - does it makes sense staying in H1 even for the Primary ???
I mean personally i've lived ( read 'did slavery') in US for sponsoring employees in H1 for 8 years and i wish to keep H1 as 'failover pair' but doing another 2nd term of slavery of 8 years till GC approval/denial comes - that has no sense at all. Its a 'No-Brainer' ....
Moreover the depends - peoples who are new in this country 2-3 years and got EAD due to July Fiasco they can still continue H1 game but folks who already lived 6-7 years on H1B they can easily go to market and play...
Advantage :- One advantage of EAD also is that if you lose your Job there is nothing called "revoke EAD" like "revoke H1B" so you can sit Jobless and sleep over for entire 8 years if you want and able to do :) :)
I agree with you..it depends how much time is left on H1.he can easily switch to H4
I mean personally i've lived ( read 'did slavery') in US for sponsoring employees in H1 for 8 years and i wish to keep H1 as 'failover pair' but doing another 2nd term of slavery of 8 years till GC approval/denial comes - that has no sense at all. Its a 'No-Brainer' ....
Moreover the depends - peoples who are new in this country 2-3 years and got EAD due to July Fiasco they can still continue H1 game but folks who already lived 6-7 years on H1B they can easily go to market and play...
Advantage :- One advantage of EAD also is that if you lose your Job there is nothing called "revoke EAD" like "revoke H1B" so you can sit Jobless and sleep over for entire 8 years if you want and able to do :) :)
I agree with you..it depends how much time is left on H1.he can easily switch to H4
more...
house taylor swift quotes from
vine93
08-06 09:19 PM
Please sit together and talk.
tattoo Selected quotes from the songs
blacktongue
01-26 01:07 PM
I don't dislike people from Andhra. I have close friends from Hyderabad.
I dislike irrelevant discussions that are motivated by race, region, or people of a certain kind. We don't need that here. It feels like housewives gossiping about useless topics.
You do not like housewives?
I dislike irrelevant discussions that are motivated by race, region, or people of a certain kind. We don't need that here. It feels like housewives gossiping about useless topics.
You do not like housewives?
more...
pictures Quote: Originally Posted by
makemygc
01-07 06:59 PM
I had the same scenario and got my EAD renewed using the new passport number without any issues. What USCIS is mainly concerned about is your A# that you fill up in your EAD form.
Thx
MakeMyGC
I would like to know the answer to this question too. does anybody know?
also pkv..how many days did it take you to get the new passport?
Thx
MakeMyGC
I would like to know the answer to this question too. does anybody know?
also pkv..how many days did it take you to get the new passport?
dresses gibson sg guitar
tikka
06-22 09:39 AM
is a TB skin test neccessary even if you tell the doc you've had a history of positive TB tests? do i have to prove i've had a history of postive TB test for the doctor to remark that on i-693..or can he just remark that without evidence and go on my word
thanks
Your chest xray was negative so you are fine.
To file for the 485 the skin test is a requirement. The doc has to prick you on your arm and in 48 hours you have the results.
You need him to sign off on the results.
thanks
Your chest xray was negative so you are fine.
To file for the 485 the skin test is a requirement. The doc has to prick you on your arm and in 48 hours you have the results.
You need him to sign off on the results.
more...
makeup It#39;s basically what my guitar
SAP
04-07 03:36 PM
Folks,
can i invoke a AC21 on future gc..I did not work for this company, i am tired of my current company, they have exploited me and my personality is changing and i forgotten to live life, want to port and move on to a new company ? is AC21 on future GC consider legal or fraud.?
Future GC labor PD : Dec 2002
Category: EB3.
I140 : approved 2004
I485: RFE on expired medicals; new medicals submitted.
EAD/AP : so far five renewals( though i did not use EAD i did use AP for travel)
Will a letter from the future GC compnay stating the position is no longer availablle due to this enormous amount of time suffice ?
your postive comments and if you have been in this situation pls tell me how you managed.
Thanks
SAP
can i invoke a AC21 on future gc..I did not work for this company, i am tired of my current company, they have exploited me and my personality is changing and i forgotten to live life, want to port and move on to a new company ? is AC21 on future GC consider legal or fraud.?
Future GC labor PD : Dec 2002
Category: EB3.
I140 : approved 2004
I485: RFE on expired medicals; new medicals submitted.
EAD/AP : so far five renewals( though i did not use EAD i did use AP for travel)
Will a letter from the future GC compnay stating the position is no longer availablle due to this enormous amount of time suffice ?
your postive comments and if you have been in this situation pls tell me how you managed.
Thanks
SAP
girlfriend tattoo taylor swift quotes.
Raji
09-16 10:20 PM
Done!!!
hairstyles Quote Reply
jgh_res
05-17 10:01 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
seahawks
06-27 02:58 PM
Consult with you Attorney first, as this is a very rare scenario for any one to answer in the forum. Also see if you can get this addresses when you go for the actual FP, Try to carry all the documents, Passport, Driver's License, etc and the copy of the I-485/ I-765 etc where you have the correct names.
Attorney is the best source of information in this scenario. Also call USCIS and request them what needs to be done in this case. Also you can get a InfoPASS appointment and get this corrected.
Reviewed all forms today. Attorney said if 485 form is correct, not to worry, go for FP and show all your proof.. but then I found out 485 form was wrong too, so waiting to hear from him.
Attorney is the best source of information in this scenario. Also call USCIS and request them what needs to be done in this case. Also you can get a InfoPASS appointment and get this corrected.
Reviewed all forms today. Attorney said if 485 form is correct, not to worry, go for FP and show all your proof.. but then I found out 485 form was wrong too, so waiting to hear from him.
ExoVoid
06-13 03:53 PM
I worked that much out, but it shouldn't throw the percentage calculations.
No comments:
Post a Comment