newbie2020
06-13 05:33 PM
Yes its all perfectly legal. let me know if you need further help in this regard
wallpaper Awsome 3D Abstract Art High
okuzmin
11-15 07:06 PM
IV admins, Alaska's state code is AK, not AL. :)
I'm in Anchorage, AK. Skiing, fishing, boating, hiking, etc. -- you name it, let's do it. :)
I'm in Anchorage, AK. Skiing, fishing, boating, hiking, etc. -- you name it, let's do it. :)
mahesh2k
06-17 04:10 AM
first stamp located here ..
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b26/mahesh2k/Stamp.gif
hope ya like it...
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b26/mahesh2k/Stamp.gif
hope ya like it...
2011 abstract Art,
snathan
02-05 03:20 PM
Hello,
My I-140 was approved in August 2009 and my PD is Jan-2004 (EB3). I want to know when i can apply for I-485, should i have to wait till my PD becomes Current or is there any other way by which i can file the I-485. Please shed some light on this topic and thanks for your time and effort.
Thanks ! ! :confused: :rolleyes:
You need to wait for your PD become current...may be in 2019.
good luck.
My I-140 was approved in August 2009 and my PD is Jan-2004 (EB3). I want to know when i can apply for I-485, should i have to wait till my PD becomes Current or is there any other way by which i can file the I-485. Please shed some light on this topic and thanks for your time and effort.
Thanks ! ! :confused: :rolleyes:
You need to wait for your PD become current...may be in 2019.
good luck.
more...
Blog Feeds
12-21 07:10 AM
With regard to export compliance, the new Form I-129 includes a new Part 6, entitled �Certification Regarding the Release of Controlled Technology or Technical Data to Foreign Persons in the United States� which requires petitioners that seek to employ foreign nationals in H, L, and O nonimmigrant visa status to certify that the company (i) has reviewed the Export Administration Regulations (�EAR�) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (�ITAR�), and (ii) made a determination as to whether or not an export control license is required to release any controlled technology or technical data to the foreign national.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/h1bvisablog/2010/12/h-1b-petitioners-beware-new-affirmation-requirement-regarding-release-of-controlled-technology-or-technical-data-to-foreign.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/h1bvisablog/2010/12/h-1b-petitioners-beware-new-affirmation-requirement-regarding-release-of-controlled-technology-or-technical-data-to-foreign.html)
chriskalani
11-01 02:18 PM
Actually just money.
www.ChrisKalani.com (http://www.ChrisKalani.com)
www.ChrisKalani.com (http://www.ChrisKalani.com)
more...
ruchigup
08-08 07:50 PM
Gurus,
I am moving 60 miles from where I live now. I am planning to do following two things.
1. File a Form AR-11
2. Call this number (800) 375-5283 for pending I-485 and EAD renewal applications for self and spouse
Do I need to update the address on approved AP/I-140/EAD or any other approved applications as well.
Am I missing something :confused:
Please advice....Thanks :)
I am moving 60 miles from where I live now. I am planning to do following two things.
1. File a Form AR-11
2. Call this number (800) 375-5283 for pending I-485 and EAD renewal applications for self and spouse
Do I need to update the address on approved AP/I-140/EAD or any other approved applications as well.
Am I missing something :confused:
Please advice....Thanks :)
2010 Abstract Art Scenery
nk2006
10-05 08:57 AM
Hi,
My company applied for PERM for me. Short of asking our HR/attorney everyday what is the way to check status.
Its applied just last week and but I can resist the urge to check the status already (anxious because I need H1B extension soon). Any advice is appreciated. thanks.
My company applied for PERM for me. Short of asking our HR/attorney everyday what is the way to check status.
Its applied just last week and but I can resist the urge to check the status already (anxious because I need H1B extension soon). Any advice is appreciated. thanks.
more...
mike007
05-14 07:40 PM
Hey there,
I have currently applied for H1B visa under Masters Quota (Regular Processing). And its still under process but I want to know if by any chance I get rejected this year, how much are the chances of being approved when I apply next year. Will it make a negative impact when I apply next year? I am currently on OPT and my course is under STEM. Also let me know if there are any other options.
Thanks
I have currently applied for H1B visa under Masters Quota (Regular Processing). And its still under process but I want to know if by any chance I get rejected this year, how much are the chances of being approved when I apply next year. Will it make a negative impact when I apply next year? I am currently on OPT and my course is under STEM. Also let me know if there are any other options.
Thanks
hair 2010 desktop wallpaper
mich19
09-23 05:55 PM
Hello there, nice website.. i hope someone will know the solution to my problem :)
I saw another post in this forum like this, but my situation is a little different.
I'm actually in New York University with a F-1 made at the US Consulate in Italy (my country)
Unfortunately i've lost my i-94 form that was attached to my passport.
i saw the I-102 form, with the 320$ fee. If needed i will pay this amount, but since i'm finishing my studies in two months someone told me that i will never back in time the copy of my I-94.
I'm planning to have a trip in Canada with some my friends, i've asked the permission at the university they told me that is ok.
Do you think that i can go outside the US without the i-94 (by car)? at my friends they will remove it?
Secondly, i'll have a new I-94 getting back in the US few days laters?
Thank you so much for the help!
Michelle
I saw another post in this forum like this, but my situation is a little different.
I'm actually in New York University with a F-1 made at the US Consulate in Italy (my country)
Unfortunately i've lost my i-94 form that was attached to my passport.
i saw the I-102 form, with the 320$ fee. If needed i will pay this amount, but since i'm finishing my studies in two months someone told me that i will never back in time the copy of my I-94.
I'm planning to have a trip in Canada with some my friends, i've asked the permission at the university they told me that is ok.
Do you think that i can go outside the US without the i-94 (by car)? at my friends they will remove it?
Secondly, i'll have a new I-94 getting back in the US few days laters?
Thank you so much for the help!
Michelle
more...
Blog Feeds
08-11 10:10 AM
USCIS continues to streamline its processing of applications and petitions with the recent change in filing locations for several forms. The following forms should be mailed to USCIS lockbox facilities rather than directly to USCIS Service Centers:
* I-129F
* I-130
* I-140
* I-526
* I-539
* I-817
The updated filing instructions can be found on the latest versions of each form, which are available for free from USCIS.
This change became effective August 3, 2010.If you recently mailed an application. Applications already en route to the Service Centers will be automatically forwarded to the appropriate lockbox for a period of 45 days. After September 17th, packages (including fees) will be returned to the applicant along with a note explaining the new filing instructions.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/08/uscis_updates_filing_instructi.html)
* I-129F
* I-130
* I-140
* I-526
* I-539
* I-817
The updated filing instructions can be found on the latest versions of each form, which are available for free from USCIS.
This change became effective August 3, 2010.If you recently mailed an application. Applications already en route to the Service Centers will be automatically forwarded to the appropriate lockbox for a period of 45 days. After September 17th, packages (including fees) will be returned to the applicant along with a note explaining the new filing instructions.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/08/uscis_updates_filing_instructi.html)
hot Abstract Art Wallpaper
edaltsis
10-08 12:14 PM
My H1B expired when I renewed (last month) my EAD. I e-filed it and selected H1B "SPECIALITY OCCUPATION". I got my new EAD card in hand within 22days from the day I filed.
more...
house 2011 abstract art wallpapers
ameryki
10-15 11:22 PM
Wife need to go to India for emergency. Advance Parole expired. Can she already leave while I apply AP now ? Or does she have to be in country until we get it ? Can i apply now and send it to her once i get it here ?
How much time normally it takes if we apply now ?
she has to be in country until she gets it
How much time normally it takes if we apply now ?
she has to be in country until she gets it
tattoo digital wallpaper,digital art
gc??
04-27 10:19 AM
unless your paperwork is shady, the fact that your company is in audit should not affect you. if you have filed for i-485 change jobs........
more...
pictures lovers wallpapers for desktop.
Blog Feeds
07-29 05:30 PM
US Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke, the former Governor of Washington state, was recently speaking to the Washington International Trade Association in his home state had some frank words about the impact visa denials and delays are having on US commerce: As we seek to open up markets for American companies abroad, the United States must also acknowledge that she has room to improve when it comes to increasing the secure flow of goods, services and people across our own borders. In particular, the United States often makes it too difficult for foreign company executives to enter here to do...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/secretary-of-commerce-admits-visa-processing-at-consulates-is-hurting-the-country.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/secretary-of-commerce-admits-visa-processing-at-consulates-is-hurting-the-country.html)
dresses Colorful Abstract Backgrounds
virat
08-02 11:57 AM
Hi,
I got an LUD on my I140 on 07/28/07. There is no message change though. This I-140 was approved way back in Aug 2006. I have filed my I-485 etc on June 1st 07, and its in process. Does anyone know what doesn this LUD mean.
Thanks
I got an LUD on my I140 on 07/28/07. There is no message change though. This I-140 was approved way back in Aug 2006. I have filed my I-485 etc on June 1st 07, and its in process. Does anyone know what doesn this LUD mean.
Thanks
more...
makeup abstract art wallpaper. stock
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
girlfriend pictures Abstract Art desktop
RedRaider
10-11 11:10 AM
Notices for Form I-485A
TSC advises that they do not issue receipt notices for Form I-485A. The center has also advised that the deposited check is enough proof that the filing was accepted.
Posted on Immigration .com
http://www.immigration.com/fromtheagency/tsc101007.html
TSC advises that they do not issue receipt notices for Form I-485A. The center has also advised that the deposited check is enough proof that the filing was accepted.
Posted on Immigration .com
http://www.immigration.com/fromtheagency/tsc101007.html
hairstyles Desktop Wallpaper Abstract
HaveQuestions
02-03 11:36 AM
My H1B was refused under section 221(g) (petitioner is not able or willing to provide employment....) and case has reached USCIS for review. The lawyers however are asking me to travel on H4 and then convert to H1 in US and they say this can be done in 2 weeks. I am so very skeptical about this! How is this even possible?
Their response is that i have an H1B from earlier quota, so i can get a new petition filed and start working on it once its approved.How come people dont do this if its valid?
My questions if anybody can help me are
1) Can i go on H4 visa without revoking my H1B petition which is under review with USCIS? Or will consulate ask me to revoke my H1B petition?
2) If i go on H4, can i really get a COS to H1 in US i.e. not the April 2011 quota but in the already assigned quota and i can start working within a few days of approval?
Their response is that i have an H1B from earlier quota, so i can get a new petition filed and start working on it once its approved.How come people dont do this if its valid?
My questions if anybody can help me are
1) Can i go on H4 visa without revoking my H1B petition which is under review with USCIS? Or will consulate ask me to revoke my H1B petition?
2) If i go on H4, can i really get a COS to H1 in US i.e. not the April 2011 quota but in the already assigned quota and i can start working within a few days of approval?
12Karan
08-06 11:55 AM
You need a visa to enter Canada that can be applied from any Canadian Consulate in the US. Indian nationals in the US without Permanent Residency/Green Card are required to have a valid visa to enter Canada irrespective of their status in the US.
gandalf_gray
12-08 09:01 PM
Hi All,
2 employers had applied H1B for me with 'change of status' from L1B.
One of them got approved, and I have already moved to that company from October 2008.
Now the other employer is informing me (its december !!!) that the petition has got a RFE, asking proof of valid L1B at the time of applying..
Here is my question:
- Should I tell that guy to withdraw my application ?
- If the RFE is answered , is there any threat to the H1B petition I am currently using for employment.
(I dont want to cause any harm to my current petition under which I am employed).
Please let me know. Thanks.
2 employers had applied H1B for me with 'change of status' from L1B.
One of them got approved, and I have already moved to that company from October 2008.
Now the other employer is informing me (its december !!!) that the petition has got a RFE, asking proof of valid L1B at the time of applying..
Here is my question:
- Should I tell that guy to withdraw my application ?
- If the RFE is answered , is there any threat to the H1B petition I am currently using for employment.
(I dont want to cause any harm to my current petition under which I am employed).
Please let me know. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment