logiclife
03-28 01:40 PM
This is already IV's number one priority on the goals of this org and we are trying to translate this goal and other goals into legislation.
Remember, everyone in the core group also wants this as this can be the life-saver of every person since EAD allows us to have a safety net after you have finished 6 years on H1.
--Jay.
Remember, everyone in the core group also wants this as this can be the life-saver of every person since EAD allows us to have a safety net after you have finished 6 years on H1.
--Jay.
delax
11-06 08:53 AM
Can we know which airline direct flight from Mumbai to Newark you mentioned something new or is it AirIndia??
Presently Continental is the only non-stop EWR-BOM service operated on a daily basis. AI flies EWR-CDG-BOM
Presently Continental is the only non-stop EWR-BOM service operated on a daily basis. AI flies EWR-CDG-BOM
Beta_mle
09-10 07:23 AM
AFAIK, as long as the core duties mentioned in the LC don't change considerably (by more than 50%), the company can promote you anytime.
I just watched the video on the front page promoting the rally and it seemed to say that your salary must remain within 5% of the amount stated in the I-140. Is this correct? This appears to contradict your answer. It also does not make sense. I am in this situation, I-140 approved with PD in '06, I-485 filed in July. My company gives raises of a few percent every year, and I would suppose most companies do. Surely it is not realistic for a person to stay at the same salary for however long it takes to adjudicate the AOS?
Could someone please address this?
Thanks.
I just watched the video on the front page promoting the rally and it seemed to say that your salary must remain within 5% of the amount stated in the I-140. Is this correct? This appears to contradict your answer. It also does not make sense. I am in this situation, I-140 approved with PD in '06, I-485 filed in July. My company gives raises of a few percent every year, and I would suppose most companies do. Surely it is not realistic for a person to stay at the same salary for however long it takes to adjudicate the AOS?
Could someone please address this?
Thanks.
mnq1979
06-26 03:32 PM
What did u provid as of now?? If can obtain bc u can produce it. If u do not have one then ceritificate of non-availability. Besides this u need to produce secendary evidences such as school, medical and religious documents or affidavits which mentions both your parents and your full names. That is what I did. In anycase, you will be given instructions on the rfe what to respond to the rfe. Good luck.
I jsut spoke to my mom and she confirmed that she has my BC in diffrent language and will get it translated. So i think i m good from that part.
But my wife BC is not available. I have asked my father in law and he said he will ask some one to get. It is possible but will take a little time.
My question is since her BC will be made NOW do i need any other proof with her BC?
I jsut spoke to my mom and she confirmed that she has my BC in diffrent language and will get it translated. So i think i m good from that part.
But my wife BC is not available. I have asked my father in law and he said he will ask some one to get. It is possible but will take a little time.
My question is since her BC will be made NOW do i need any other proof with her BC?
more...
stemcell
03-07 09:48 PM
i missed the second part of your question.
i personally know a friend whose 1-140 was denied and their 485 is obviously pending....he is working on EAD, they have appealed for the 140. While the case is pending the EAD has been extended by 2 years.
Hope this helps.
i personally know a friend whose 1-140 was denied and their 485 is obviously pending....he is working on EAD, they have appealed for the 140. While the case is pending the EAD has been extended by 2 years.
Hope this helps.
sparky63
June 18th, 2005, 02:04 PM
*really* nice shot ... the bird's expression is great ("Hey! How dare you point that camera at me!")
Regarding the first shot, I guess I disagree with Henrik. The blurred bird detracts from an otherwise good shot (Nik's comments on color saturation make sense to me, too).
Shots 4 & 5 (the birds and their mirror images) are very nice.
Thanks for sharing your morning light with us.
Regarding the first shot, I guess I disagree with Henrik. The blurred bird detracts from an otherwise good shot (Nik's comments on color saturation make sense to me, too).
Shots 4 & 5 (the birds and their mirror images) are very nice.
Thanks for sharing your morning light with us.
more...
vivache
10-05 07:17 PM
yep .. that was my thinking.
Have seen a lot of posts where people insist that on EAD the job that you do needs to match the one you did on h1 .. at least 50%.
So am looking for documentation on what the exact rules are related to an EAD.
Any weblinks on this?
Have seen a lot of posts where people insist that on EAD the job that you do needs to match the one you did on h1 .. at least 50%.
So am looking for documentation on what the exact rules are related to an EAD.
Any weblinks on this?
texcan
07-29 09:53 PM
It is best that you never be out of job. If you lose job, try to get one ASAP. It normally takes a month or two to get one if you work hard and try
Chandu and Gurus
I am curious to know how long can one stay out of job on an EAD. My case being 485 applied in july 2007 , 140 is already approved and its been about a year since 485 application.
So does the law says that one has to stay in employment or one can relax and take it easy for a little bit.
thanks in advance
-d
Chandu and Gurus
I am curious to know how long can one stay out of job on an EAD. My case being 485 applied in july 2007 , 140 is already approved and its been about a year since 485 application.
So does the law says that one has to stay in employment or one can relax and take it easy for a little bit.
thanks in advance
-d
more...
knnmbd
08-30 12:36 PM
I read SKIL bill and it refers to "Exempts U.S.-educated professionals with advanced degrees". I Do not see why an online master degree does not fit in here. Maybe I am missing something :)
This is an excerpt of Section 201.
Section 201. United States Educated Immigrants. Exempts U.S.-educated professionals with advanced degrees and those who have been awarded a medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience
in the United States from the annual green card (i.e. immigrant visa) cap.
All I was trying to say is that only "accredited" programs might be eligible, and I am not too sure how many online Master's fall in to this bracket, but not too many I guess, except for some of them offered from top-notch schools.
Again, this is just speculation as no one has yet seen the nuances of the bill.
This is an excerpt of Section 201.
Section 201. United States Educated Immigrants. Exempts U.S.-educated professionals with advanced degrees and those who have been awarded a medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience
in the United States from the annual green card (i.e. immigrant visa) cap.
All I was trying to say is that only "accredited" programs might be eligible, and I am not too sure how many online Master's fall in to this bracket, but not too many I guess, except for some of them offered from top-notch schools.
Again, this is just speculation as no one has yet seen the nuances of the bill.
karthkc
03-27 05:47 PM
I was on bench for 4 months in 2001. I have 2 times H1 transfer after that and visited India couple of times. I have regular pay stubs from 2002 onwards.
Can this create an issue while IO is working on my 485 application?
The official stance from my attorneys on this kind of a situation is to ensure that you were not "unlawfully present" in the US during the time in question.
What that means is if you were over 180+ days out of status, you enter into what is known as "unlawful presence" period. In that situation, the penalties are far more severe than just status violation.
In your case, the time period is well within that limit and that coupled with the fact that you were lawfully re-admitted into the US twice since the period should not cause concern.
If it does come up during adjudication, a good attorney should be able to compose a response accordingly.
Hope that helps!
--Karthik
Can this create an issue while IO is working on my 485 application?
The official stance from my attorneys on this kind of a situation is to ensure that you were not "unlawfully present" in the US during the time in question.
What that means is if you were over 180+ days out of status, you enter into what is known as "unlawful presence" period. In that situation, the penalties are far more severe than just status violation.
In your case, the time period is well within that limit and that coupled with the fact that you were lawfully re-admitted into the US twice since the period should not cause concern.
If it does come up during adjudication, a good attorney should be able to compose a response accordingly.
Hope that helps!
--Karthik
more...
gc28262
01-16 03:29 PM
Lofgreen's office entertains calls from her constituents only. This is my experience when I tried to call her office last year.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
ganguteli
03-27 10:28 AM
Just an idea, if emails or letters doesn't reach Obama...may be IV should consider an open letter to Obama,Congress and Senate by buying space in major news papers
and suggesting the obvious economic benefits(buying homes, home renovations, buying durable goods etc) of speeding legal immigration.
Just one space buy in a major newspaper will cost 10s of thousands of dollars. I think it is a waste of money.
and suggesting the obvious economic benefits(buying homes, home renovations, buying durable goods etc) of speeding legal immigration.
Just one space buy in a major newspaper will cost 10s of thousands of dollars. I think it is a waste of money.
more...
RNGC
07-12 01:08 PM
Most people think law suit is a bad thing, but that is not right. In a democratic country law suit is the right way to deal with things. We are legal immigrants, we have all the rights to file a law suit, but with full support of IV.
People have already filed a law suit on the same day the President signed the bill! (yesterday, the wire tapping bill...)
By filing a law suit, all we are trying to do is to fix the laws which are not working. Basically, we are doing the right thing. Not only us, but future Legal immigrants will be benefitted, they don't have to go thru what we had to...
Here are the things that needs to be fixed...
1. Country quota
2. Recapturing visas.
3. 3 year EAD/AP
4. End the endless wait ( Proposing a new law )
5. Remove the same/similar confusion in AC21
What is "End the endless wait" ?
EAD is a very good example, If 90 days have passed after filing EAD, you have the option to go to a local USCIS office and get a temp one. We should have a similar option for all the peper work. For example, each and every stage in green card process should have a a day count for processing. Like name check should be completed in 180 days.
Basically, when we receive any receipt notice, it should have a statement which reads "We have received your application and we will take action within 180 days. If we fail to act by MM-DD-YYYY, Please go to the nearest USCIS for approval.."
Sounds little ambitious ?? well, we are not asking for too much, just a day count. Lets say if the whole Green card process takes 3 years or 10 years based on the day count for each stage, people can decide whether they want to immigrate to USA with a clear idea that it will take x days to become a permanent resident ( like how it works in all other countries except USA)
Even a person jailed gets to know how long he is going to spend his time behind bars, but we do not know when we will be free from this immigration mess!
People have already filed a law suit on the same day the President signed the bill! (yesterday, the wire tapping bill...)
By filing a law suit, all we are trying to do is to fix the laws which are not working. Basically, we are doing the right thing. Not only us, but future Legal immigrants will be benefitted, they don't have to go thru what we had to...
Here are the things that needs to be fixed...
1. Country quota
2. Recapturing visas.
3. 3 year EAD/AP
4. End the endless wait ( Proposing a new law )
5. Remove the same/similar confusion in AC21
What is "End the endless wait" ?
EAD is a very good example, If 90 days have passed after filing EAD, you have the option to go to a local USCIS office and get a temp one. We should have a similar option for all the peper work. For example, each and every stage in green card process should have a a day count for processing. Like name check should be completed in 180 days.
Basically, when we receive any receipt notice, it should have a statement which reads "We have received your application and we will take action within 180 days. If we fail to act by MM-DD-YYYY, Please go to the nearest USCIS for approval.."
Sounds little ambitious ?? well, we are not asking for too much, just a day count. Lets say if the whole Green card process takes 3 years or 10 years based on the day count for each stage, people can decide whether they want to immigrate to USA with a clear idea that it will take x days to become a permanent resident ( like how it works in all other countries except USA)
Even a person jailed gets to know how long he is going to spend his time behind bars, but we do not know when we will be free from this immigration mess!
lazycis
08-15 10:15 AM
Yes and no. Yes it is mandatory by definition. No because there are ways around. You could go join a school to get higher education. You could ask Y to terminate your employment.
Better still. AFter your GC is approved, get a letter from Y that "unfortunately the position is no longer available. You are most welcome to try for jobs in other areas". Then submit your resume and go for an interview or two, if called. Keep all records, emails. Then you are completely off the hook!!!
It is mandatory by law. Both side have to have a bona fide intention (for company - to hire, for employee - to work for) for EB GC. Employer proves its intent by filing I-140. Employee proves his/her intent by joining the employer. Each situation is unique, but in OP's situation, there is no bona fide intent to work for company Y. Therefore, it will be a fradulent GC which can be revoked. How OP is going to prove that he was going to join Y after GC is approved? AC21 allows for porting, but porting to company X will look fishy as well. If OP can get a letter from Y that position is no longer available, it may help. This being said, there is a possibility to get a GC without any issues.
Better still. AFter your GC is approved, get a letter from Y that "unfortunately the position is no longer available. You are most welcome to try for jobs in other areas". Then submit your resume and go for an interview or two, if called. Keep all records, emails. Then you are completely off the hook!!!
It is mandatory by law. Both side have to have a bona fide intention (for company - to hire, for employee - to work for) for EB GC. Employer proves its intent by filing I-140. Employee proves his/her intent by joining the employer. Each situation is unique, but in OP's situation, there is no bona fide intent to work for company Y. Therefore, it will be a fradulent GC which can be revoked. How OP is going to prove that he was going to join Y after GC is approved? AC21 allows for porting, but porting to company X will look fishy as well. If OP can get a letter from Y that position is no longer available, it may help. This being said, there is a possibility to get a GC without any issues.
more...
nshah1968
05-17 10:18 AM
Hello guy03062,
my attorney charged me and some other in my office $1000 for H1b also they did our PERM LC and I-140 also and all was approved witout any query, you can try to reach them here:
please mail me directly and I will reply with there details
my attorney charged me and some other in my office $1000 for H1b also they did our PERM LC and I-140 also and all was approved witout any query, you can try to reach them here:
please mail me directly and I will reply with there details
ash0210
05-15 12:27 PM
Since yesterday after reading June bulletin, it seems that we are loosing "focus" now..no one is asking what discussions are going on CIR shdeuled on May 14?
Correct me if I am wrong!!
Correct me if I am wrong!!
more...
gc_bulgaria
10-09 04:18 PM
http://www.immigration-law.com/
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
jazzy2
05-25 08:47 AM
Hi all
called Sen. Lindsey Graham
and Sen. John Macain
Both the numbers had an option on leaving a message or opinion on a legislation.
So i left a message ....
should i also speak to the staff??
jazzy2...
washington dc
called Sen. Lindsey Graham
and Sen. John Macain
Both the numbers had an option on leaving a message or opinion on a legislation.
So i left a message ....
should i also speak to the staff??
jazzy2...
washington dc
raju6855
02-06 09:49 AM
What number do you call?
Thx
Thx
amitjoey
10-23 11:57 AM
No question is stupid, we are all learning and there are always these complex and everchanging provisions. I-140 Premium is not available as of now. It could change anytime. Is $1000.00 Lawyers fees? for filing I-140? COs s/he cannot ask for PP fees. Go to USCIS home page to figure out what the I-140 and I-485 FEES are and add your lawyers fees to it to get an approximate total.
Depends on the center, Texas or Nebraska, I-140 approval takes anywhere between 2months and 14 months. Nebraska is taking 14 months.
With an older PD, you are very certain to get GC within the next 3-6 months if you do not get stuck in name check and if your I-140 gets cleared.
Do not lose hope.
I apologize from the beginning if I�m asking some stupid questions but I�m really confused after I read all those I-140 issues posted on this forum.
I just received today my LC after a long wait in backlog from 04/2001.
1. My lawyer is asking me for $1000.00 premium processing fee and some documents from my employer for this PP for I-140. Is it still available?
2. How long will be until this I-140 gets approved? Anyone who did this lately?
3. I�m filling I-140 together with I-485. It matters, time PP wise?
4. Is there another�next step� towards the GC or just wait for those to be approved?
5. I�m so �squeezed� on my wallet, how much money will be still needed until the GC is in my hand?
I paid so far more then 35G. - The previous �steps� in processing fees and lawyer�s fees.
I would really appreciate some honest answers; I�m seriously thinking to go back to my country if the GC will be too far away.
Thank you guys for your attention and thanks IV for the good work done so far.
:)
Depends on the center, Texas or Nebraska, I-140 approval takes anywhere between 2months and 14 months. Nebraska is taking 14 months.
With an older PD, you are very certain to get GC within the next 3-6 months if you do not get stuck in name check and if your I-140 gets cleared.
Do not lose hope.
I apologize from the beginning if I�m asking some stupid questions but I�m really confused after I read all those I-140 issues posted on this forum.
I just received today my LC after a long wait in backlog from 04/2001.
1. My lawyer is asking me for $1000.00 premium processing fee and some documents from my employer for this PP for I-140. Is it still available?
2. How long will be until this I-140 gets approved? Anyone who did this lately?
3. I�m filling I-140 together with I-485. It matters, time PP wise?
4. Is there another�next step� towards the GC or just wait for those to be approved?
5. I�m so �squeezed� on my wallet, how much money will be still needed until the GC is in my hand?
I paid so far more then 35G. - The previous �steps� in processing fees and lawyer�s fees.
I would really appreciate some honest answers; I�m seriously thinking to go back to my country if the GC will be too far away.
Thank you guys for your attention and thanks IV for the good work done so far.
:)
Norristown
11-14 04:27 PM
Currently job market is little bit tight. Employers are asking for GC or citizenship.
By the time we seek perm job, EAD shows only remaining 6 months validity. That might scare some employers. Employers pay more for contractors than employees. So I see you mau get small hike in salary...
By the time we seek perm job, EAD shows only remaining 6 months validity. That might scare some employers. Employers pay more for contractors than employees. So I see you mau get small hike in salary...
No comments:
Post a Comment