scubadude
May 25th, 2005, 06:47 PM
Thanks for your replies. I'll see what I can do to improve.
wallpaper hairstyles for long
seeker_gc
06-18 12:31 PM
Thanks all of you. I'll keep you posted once my medical is done.
kirupa
09-11 10:31 PM
Hmm interesting! I am completely swamped with other tasks right now, but I'll *try* to look at in greater detail shortly :)
2011 The angs and layers are also
xyzqwer
01-22 11:05 AM
Hello,
Here is my situation.
- I'm under EB2 - RoW category. My I-140 just got approved and I was preparing to file for my I-485 (current)
- I went to the Bahamas last week to get my 3 year H1B renewal stamping but it was denied due to employer issues and I was forced to go back to India.
- Now I cant go back to US to file my 485. My company is still offering to help me on my GC.
I'm still reeling from the shock of my H1B denial. What are my options now?
Is Consular processing the way to go? Will loosing my H1B status have any effect on CP?
Should I start CP immediately or can I wait a few months to try to get back to the US on a new H1B?
Can anyone point me to some online materials detailing CP.
Thanks in advance.
Here is my situation.
- I'm under EB2 - RoW category. My I-140 just got approved and I was preparing to file for my I-485 (current)
- I went to the Bahamas last week to get my 3 year H1B renewal stamping but it was denied due to employer issues and I was forced to go back to India.
- Now I cant go back to US to file my 485. My company is still offering to help me on my GC.
I'm still reeling from the shock of my H1B denial. What are my options now?
Is Consular processing the way to go? Will loosing my H1B status have any effect on CP?
Should I start CP immediately or can I wait a few months to try to get back to the US on a new H1B?
Can anyone point me to some online materials detailing CP.
Thanks in advance.
more...
abracadabra
07-06 11:38 AM
There are about Six theards on washington Post going on currently, the ask question, till someone picks up Thanks
rajenk
10-19 11:21 AM
OP,
Check my reply in the following thread for your question 4.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum105-immigrant-visa/1599821-eb2-i140-approved-looking-for-a-visa-transfer-is-it-possible.html
The sections I referred in the Adjudicator's Field manual means
USCIS revocation for Fraud or misrepresentation in the application.
Check my reply in the following thread for your question 4.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum105-immigrant-visa/1599821-eb2-i140-approved-looking-for-a-visa-transfer-is-it-possible.html
The sections I referred in the Adjudicator's Field manual means
USCIS revocation for Fraud or misrepresentation in the application.
more...
pom
05-11 05:01 PM
Cybergold, you win :)
2010 hairstyles for long hair with
gc_chahiye
11-11 12:51 PM
Please check this post by murthy on Non 09, 2007
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_nupush.html
On October 23, 2007, sixteen members of the New Democrat Coalition, led by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, requested that "the House take action this year to resolve the immediate talent crisis that is facing U.S. employers." The group is pushing for reform that would increase H1B and employment based permanent residence, or "green card" quotas, before Congress adjourns this year.
Any IV updates on this ?
Yet again we have H1B and GC issues together , does this mean there is no chance that this would succeed ?
slightly offtopic:
Its funny that you linked to Murthy's website for such news, as they are typically the slowest to pick up anything like this. Mathhew Oh is fast... and some IV member (or core itself) the fastest.
This was discussed on IV (& even a link to the exact letter posted) the very day it became public:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14821
visit IV often to check for such updates, if something comes up we'll all need to mobilize quickly (phone/fax campaigns)
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_nupush.html
On October 23, 2007, sixteen members of the New Democrat Coalition, led by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, requested that "the House take action this year to resolve the immediate talent crisis that is facing U.S. employers." The group is pushing for reform that would increase H1B and employment based permanent residence, or "green card" quotas, before Congress adjourns this year.
Any IV updates on this ?
Yet again we have H1B and GC issues together , does this mean there is no chance that this would succeed ?
slightly offtopic:
Its funny that you linked to Murthy's website for such news, as they are typically the slowest to pick up anything like this. Mathhew Oh is fast... and some IV member (or core itself) the fastest.
This was discussed on IV (& even a link to the exact letter posted) the very day it became public:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14821
visit IV often to check for such updates, if something comes up we'll all need to mobilize quickly (phone/fax campaigns)
more...
Pallavi79
02-21 08:49 AM
I have one ing savings account and one Bank of America account. I do automatic transfer between these accounts penny per month. that should keep my accounts active.
If I do not get job in another one,two months, I have to pack my bags.
If I do not get job in another one,two months, I have to pack my bags.
hair hairstyles long hair
aps1
08-23 08:02 PM
I made an infopass appt on Aug 20th and got it for 26th. I do not know why you couldn't?
more...
smisachu
04-26 11:18 AM
If your previous company has closed down, there isnt any way you can port the PD.
PD transfer can be done if you have an approved I-140. Since you didnt reach that stage and also since the company is no longer around ( which kills any possibility of filing 140 with them ) , you wouldnt be able to port your PD.
Also for PD transfer through approved I140, your job responsibilities, your location of work etc do not play any role.
Thanks for the reply. I guess no luck is good luck in the present immigration system.:mad:
PD transfer can be done if you have an approved I-140. Since you didnt reach that stage and also since the company is no longer around ( which kills any possibility of filing 140 with them ) , you wouldnt be able to port your PD.
Also for PD transfer through approved I140, your job responsibilities, your location of work etc do not play any role.
Thanks for the reply. I guess no luck is good luck in the present immigration system.:mad:
hot hairstyles with angs and
TeddyKoochu
12-28 10:58 AM
I don't have the I-797A's I-94 which was attached to the bottom since I had to submit that in Jan 2009 when I'd visited India and come back to the US with H1-B stamping. I do have a copy of this I-797A's I-94...would giving this copy be better than not providing any at all? Thanks, Vick
You are actually expected to provide the latest I94, I believe that your employer may have filed an I9 based on your latest I94, just find the I94 # and the local customs and immigration at the airport should be able to issue you a new one. If you have a copy or the number of this one it would help.
You are actually expected to provide the latest I94, I believe that your employer may have filed an I9 based on your latest I94, just find the I94 # and the local customs and immigration at the airport should be able to issue you a new one. If you have a copy or the number of this one it would help.
more...
house Long Layers with Bangs
prout02
07-30 12:26 PM
I have read in this forum frequent questions about this - legality/enforceability of noncompete clause. Here's a recent court decision from Kansas. It talks about physician practices. No idea if it is applicable to other professions. But the four factors cited in the decision seem relevant.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
tattoo long hairstyles with angs and
lskreddy
07-02 03:59 PM
I am not sure about whether you could sue or not but USCIS's processing order is wreaking havoc, and if there was any way to bring the buggers to task, that would be great.
For the person who asked whether you saw 2008 application approved before 2007, I am a prime case. I have couple of I140's going, one in EB3 and the other in EB2. EB3's I140 was filed in July 2007 and EB2's I140 was filed in Feb 2008. The one filed in Feb 2008 was approved a few days back and the July app is still pending.
Had they followed Kaiser's logic, they would not have approved my Feb app too as my Feb app is no where current, but there is hardly any sense to their order. Its as if the applications come in, they put it in crates and stashed somewhere. The crates are pulled in random order.
As a theory, they might be approving much later filed apps as a means to acheive better 'average' processing times. If you take me as an example, I have one app pending for 12 months and the other approved in 4 months. So, the average is 8 and that might be what the higher up might care for. But, none of this is fathomable by souls like us...
For the person who asked whether you saw 2008 application approved before 2007, I am a prime case. I have couple of I140's going, one in EB3 and the other in EB2. EB3's I140 was filed in July 2007 and EB2's I140 was filed in Feb 2008. The one filed in Feb 2008 was approved a few days back and the July app is still pending.
Had they followed Kaiser's logic, they would not have approved my Feb app too as my Feb app is no where current, but there is hardly any sense to their order. Its as if the applications come in, they put it in crates and stashed somewhere. The crates are pulled in random order.
As a theory, they might be approving much later filed apps as a means to acheive better 'average' processing times. If you take me as an example, I have one app pending for 12 months and the other approved in 4 months. So, the average is 8 and that might be what the higher up might care for. But, none of this is fathomable by souls like us...
more...
pictures hairstyles with angs and
marcus12
01-26 05:17 PM
Hello Guys help me out
I have been in USA from last 3 years on student visa. I was first in 1 university and finished my Masters there and than moved to other university for 2nd master
Between the gap of transferring the school I started a small business online which went off good and is still going on. the beauty of business is that its everything online so it does not matter if I stay in USA or not.
Real problem is here: I just got engaged and getting married in June. So my wish is to bring my wife here for few months, show her around and than go back permanently.
University in which I am doing 2nd MS is not accredited and giving me hard time by saying that they will drop me off if I dont concentrate. Now I cannot go to school and attend classes because I have to handle the business.
Now I am thinking of leaving USA in April and leave the school too from between. These will give the end to student visa and the fees which I am paying every semester. Than I am thinking to apply back as a visitor visa in August which I will get for 10 years.
I dont want to stay here in USA just want to come from time to time as I like it here. My question is should I continue school and bring my wife on dependent visa or should I leave the school and apply for tourist visa again?
I see more changes in 2nd one because consulate can also understand that I didnt wanted to stay in USA even when my student visa was valid so why I will overstay on Tourist visa. Also I have good balance and good properties In India by my name. I am the only son to my parents
So I dont see any reason to get rejected?. But please give your suggestion
I have been in USA from last 3 years on student visa. I was first in 1 university and finished my Masters there and than moved to other university for 2nd master
Between the gap of transferring the school I started a small business online which went off good and is still going on. the beauty of business is that its everything online so it does not matter if I stay in USA or not.
Real problem is here: I just got engaged and getting married in June. So my wish is to bring my wife here for few months, show her around and than go back permanently.
University in which I am doing 2nd MS is not accredited and giving me hard time by saying that they will drop me off if I dont concentrate. Now I cannot go to school and attend classes because I have to handle the business.
Now I am thinking of leaving USA in April and leave the school too from between. These will give the end to student visa and the fees which I am paying every semester. Than I am thinking to apply back as a visitor visa in August which I will get for 10 years.
I dont want to stay here in USA just want to come from time to time as I like it here. My question is should I continue school and bring my wife on dependent visa or should I leave the school and apply for tourist visa again?
I see more changes in 2nd one because consulate can also understand that I didnt wanted to stay in USA even when my student visa was valid so why I will overstay on Tourist visa. Also I have good balance and good properties In India by my name. I am the only son to my parents
So I dont see any reason to get rejected?. But please give your suggestion
dresses long hairstyles with angs and
BharatPremi
12-21 07:59 PM
Looks like the EB2 dates for india have retrogressed by two years. I am applying for green card and would like to know if I shouls go with EB2 or EB3.
Thanks for your help...
Truth:
------
USCIS has decided to keep EB2/3-IN,China,Mexico,Philipines applicants in virtual jail for an average 7 to 10 years. So in reality it does not matter what you choose. Whatever you select you will be at mercy of USCIS. Only one thing you should do, in my opinion, not to become monkey if your real goal is to achieve GC in short span of 4 to 5 years. As you hop trees add more number of years per hop. By the way this is the first month you see EB2 retrogressed.
EB3 was in hell for last 4 years. So I am seeing at least 2 years for EB3 moving fast. Your category will be in real effect after at least 4 years of your filing and you can not predict what will happen after 4 years. Only one action is in your control and that is not to hop seeing short term gain."Exploitation from employer" OR "Temporarily seeing particular catgory moving fast or slow" are not good reasons for hoping in the path what USCIS has defined. SO if you try to cross that then you will be in this hell for more years. Whatever you select stick to it till the day you get your GC.
Thanks for your help...
Truth:
------
USCIS has decided to keep EB2/3-IN,China,Mexico,Philipines applicants in virtual jail for an average 7 to 10 years. So in reality it does not matter what you choose. Whatever you select you will be at mercy of USCIS. Only one thing you should do, in my opinion, not to become monkey if your real goal is to achieve GC in short span of 4 to 5 years. As you hop trees add more number of years per hop. By the way this is the first month you see EB2 retrogressed.
EB3 was in hell for last 4 years. So I am seeing at least 2 years for EB3 moving fast. Your category will be in real effect after at least 4 years of your filing and you can not predict what will happen after 4 years. Only one action is in your control and that is not to hop seeing short term gain."Exploitation from employer" OR "Temporarily seeing particular catgory moving fast or slow" are not good reasons for hoping in the path what USCIS has defined. SO if you try to cross that then you will be in this hell for more years. Whatever you select stick to it till the day you get your GC.
more...
makeup hairstyles for long hair with
JazzByTheBay
08-21 01:11 PM
Very helpful response!
Yes, it depends on IO, but assuming USCIS has been informed of AC21 portability, I'm guessing we should be OK.
Thanks again,
jazz
I have changed the job on EAD and used AP for returning back. To be on the safeside I have notified USCIS service center about my AC21 change and kept the copy of the package sent to USCIS.
On our return in EWR, we have been sent to secondary inspection. IO asked whom I am working? I said my new employer's name? He took our copies of AP and stamped I-94 as parolled.
On our return in two days our greencard was also approved without any RFEs.
Again it depends on I/O in the port of entry I guess.
Yes, it depends on IO, but assuming USCIS has been informed of AC21 portability, I'm guessing we should be OK.
Thanks again,
jazz
I have changed the job on EAD and used AP for returning back. To be on the safeside I have notified USCIS service center about my AC21 change and kept the copy of the package sent to USCIS.
On our return in EWR, we have been sent to secondary inspection. IO asked whom I am working? I said my new employer's name? He took our copies of AP and stamped I-94 as parolled.
On our return in two days our greencard was also approved without any RFEs.
Again it depends on I/O in the port of entry I guess.
girlfriend hairstyles for girls light
hazishak
08-01 09:28 AM
My wife is planning to go for H4 visa stamping in October. My question is can she go alone??????????? and what kind of documents she need. Our I-485 applications have reached USCIS on July 2nd. Any reply will be greatly appreciated.
hello .....somebody ans meeeeeeeeeeeeee
hello .....somebody ans meeeeeeeeeeeeee
hairstyles Long hair? Go for long layers
Nikith77
03-12 03:55 PM
Just Relax, And Enjoy the ride.
mantagon
07-22 04:30 PM
Even if you use AP to re-enter, instead of a H1 visa, you may still be able to maintain your H1 status, provided you continue working for the same employer.
Hope this helps!
is this is right?
-> H1 (797 approval notice) is valid
-> you enter USA on AP, you will get AOS status.
-> H1 is still valid but unusable as the status is AOS.
-> If anything happens to GC processing then you loose status, H1 will NOT become a backup.
-> The only way you change from AOS to visa status is by renewing your H1 or change jobs with H1 ( or reenter USA on H1 Visa ).
PS : I understand , H1 ( 791 approval notice ) and H1Visa are different.
Hope this helps!
is this is right?
-> H1 (797 approval notice) is valid
-> you enter USA on AP, you will get AOS status.
-> H1 is still valid but unusable as the status is AOS.
-> If anything happens to GC processing then you loose status, H1 will NOT become a backup.
-> The only way you change from AOS to visa status is by renewing your H1 or change jobs with H1 ( or reenter USA on H1 Visa ).
PS : I understand , H1 ( 791 approval notice ) and H1Visa are different.
gemini23
11-19 08:50 AM
Do we have to send copies of H1 visa stamp in passport in order to apply for ead renewal. if yes, what would be the case if the H1 visa stamp is expired. Can I send the copy of expired H1 visa stamp and I-797 approval , for ead renewal?
Can you please answer this question as I am about to file for a ead renewal.
Can you please answer this question as I am about to file for a ead renewal.
0 comments:
Post a Comment