surge
02-16 10:38 AM
HI Surge
As far as i have understood , if you have filed your I485 before expiry of your I-94 then you are legal in the country and you can use your AP to travel.
not really, but close.
i-94 expire 10/01/2007. married 09/12/2007. i-485 received by uscis on 11/26/2007.
As far as i have understood , if you have filed your I485 before expiry of your I-94 then you are legal in the country and you can use your AP to travel.
not really, but close.
i-94 expire 10/01/2007. married 09/12/2007. i-485 received by uscis on 11/26/2007.
TEKNMEK
03-02 11:06 AM
How important is it to have a letter from the client for h4 to h1. Though the person has the paystubs till date.
TIA
It is advisable to have the letter just incase if the officer asks for it. Although in my case, the officer did not ask for the letter.
TIA
It is advisable to have the letter just incase if the officer asks for it. Although in my case, the officer did not ask for the letter.
GC2B
03-30 10:52 PM
Congratulations....
A couple of questions, which could everybody in analysis
- Did you use EAD ?
- Did you use AC21 ?
Thanks
A couple of questions, which could everybody in analysis
- Did you use EAD ?
- Did you use AC21 ?
Thanks
mnq1979
09-21 07:38 AM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Thanks.
I am sorry i cannot answer ur question because i m not an expert in this broken immigration process but i have a question.
Can you tell if this is ur 1st RFE on I485 or did u receive any prior RFE's also?
Did ur wife also applied for the I485 with you or u applied alone?
thanks
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Thanks.
I am sorry i cannot answer ur question because i m not an expert in this broken immigration process but i have a question.
Can you tell if this is ur 1st RFE on I485 or did u receive any prior RFE's also?
Did ur wife also applied for the I485 with you or u applied alone?
thanks
more...
aaaa4321
08-31 03:02 PM
Thanks to all of you for explaining the real thing.
sss2000
10-31 03:31 PM
I talked to Delta rep and she told we can transfer miles from one account to another account. But there is a big catch. You need to pay about $10.00 for every 1000 miles transfered and $25.00 transaction fee.
more...
smisachu
12-13 03:59 PM
Another thing is whay do you want to get into EB2???:confused::confused:
Did you not see the Jan 08 bulletin? EB2 India is behind EB3 and on the brink of the last century:mad::mad:
Of course this is assuming you are from India, if you are not; then 3 cheers for you. Study up and move out of the GC mess.
I'm thinking about pursuing maser degree of Biostatistics.
I heard the job market demand is high and
most jobs require master degree at least.
As a research assistance, biostatistician, research analyst..
Could I apply as EB2 ?
Am I qualifed?
Did you not see the Jan 08 bulletin? EB2 India is behind EB3 and on the brink of the last century:mad::mad:
Of course this is assuming you are from India, if you are not; then 3 cheers for you. Study up and move out of the GC mess.
I'm thinking about pursuing maser degree of Biostatistics.
I heard the job market demand is high and
most jobs require master degree at least.
As a research assistance, biostatistician, research analyst..
Could I apply as EB2 ?
Am I qualifed?
WeShallOvercome
10-05 01:26 PM
Speddi
which serivce center are your applications pending with?
Hi,
I am a July 2nd filer and I got my receipt notices, EADs and completed the FP too. I didnt get the AP yet but my wife's AP shows as approved. When I talked to an IO couple of days ago, she said my AP is approved but they didnt update the website. I called USCIS Customer Service today 3 to 4 (it seems they keep track of it) times and each gave me a different information. Sometimes they said they have Aug 17th as the receipt date but my receipt date is July 2nd(on the RN) and Aug 20th is the ND. So, I dont know what this Aug 17th date is and they say that is what they have in their systems as received date and I am still in the processing time. I am confused. According to my attorney, my wife's AP shudnt have been approved without my AP getting approved since I am the primary applicant.
Do I need to worry or just wait some more days? I am mainly worried that they have the wrong date as receipt date in their system and it might affect on future processing.
Thank you for any kind of input.
which serivce center are your applications pending with?
Hi,
I am a July 2nd filer and I got my receipt notices, EADs and completed the FP too. I didnt get the AP yet but my wife's AP shows as approved. When I talked to an IO couple of days ago, she said my AP is approved but they didnt update the website. I called USCIS Customer Service today 3 to 4 (it seems they keep track of it) times and each gave me a different information. Sometimes they said they have Aug 17th as the receipt date but my receipt date is July 2nd(on the RN) and Aug 20th is the ND. So, I dont know what this Aug 17th date is and they say that is what they have in their systems as received date and I am still in the processing time. I am confused. According to my attorney, my wife's AP shudnt have been approved without my AP getting approved since I am the primary applicant.
Do I need to worry or just wait some more days? I am mainly worried that they have the wrong date as receipt date in their system and it might affect on future processing.
Thank you for any kind of input.
more...
Mohit_Malkani
10-08 11:13 AM
Sorry to hear about your situation.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
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 physically 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 ensure. 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.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
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 physically 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 ensure. 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.
GCEB2
09-20 10:13 PM
can any one give some information on this
more...
jvs
09-23 02:27 PM
I applied for my second AP on 08/11/2009, was approved on 09/03/2009, was received at the attorney's office on 09/10/2009. Service center NSC.
No FP was done. FWIW my last FP was in Jan 09.
Did you guys have to go through FP for the APs? Will they take FP again even if they have done that before.
No FP was done. FWIW my last FP was in Jan 09.
Did you guys have to go through FP for the APs? Will they take FP again even if they have done that before.
helph1b
09-18 05:16 AM
:mad:
It seems that NJ based consultancy firm "Segicorp" is fraud because it has taken money on behalf of H1B aplications from many candidates and there is no response yet.
Segicorp is giving same reply to all that applications was couriered thru fedex and waiting for reply from USCIS. They are just fooling as there is no prrof that our application packets was really couriered to USCIS. If they had really sent our application packet then we would have atleast received Receipt number.
All of many friends who have applied thru other consultants has received receipt number long back and are waiting for their status. If we had atleast received receipt number and no approval, then also we would have been convinced that approval depends on USCIS and NOT on segicorp. But Segicorp had nicely and smartly enjoyed everyones money and are free without any problems.
Now from last few weeks they are not even replying any emails or phone calls. This clearly indicates that it was very well planned fraud. They should really be sent to jail. :mad:
It seems that NJ based consultancy firm "Segicorp" is fraud because it has taken money on behalf of H1B aplications from many candidates and there is no response yet.
Segicorp is giving same reply to all that applications was couriered thru fedex and waiting for reply from USCIS. They are just fooling as there is no prrof that our application packets was really couriered to USCIS. If they had really sent our application packet then we would have atleast received Receipt number.
All of many friends who have applied thru other consultants has received receipt number long back and are waiting for their status. If we had atleast received receipt number and no approval, then also we would have been convinced that approval depends on USCIS and NOT on segicorp. But Segicorp had nicely and smartly enjoyed everyones money and are free without any problems.
Now from last few weeks they are not even replying any emails or phone calls. This clearly indicates that it was very well planned fraud. They should really be sent to jail. :mad:
more...
gc_kaavaali
05-21 01:55 PM
Are you sure? it is going to be too much pain....
It is no longer available.
It is no longer available.
pappusheth
05-02 10:43 AM
Thanks guys.. good to know that..
more...
Berkeleybee
03-01 01:22 PM
All you have to do is scroll down the home page.
Let me know if you still have difficulties.
Let me know if you still have difficulties.
hebron
08-10 10:15 AM
Suggestions....anybody? ^^^^
more...
jay75
07-12 10:19 PM
Count me in for this law suit. I'm willing to contribute money for this.
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!
__________________
Attended the DC Rally
Contribution: $150
Sent letters to President/IV
Status : I-485 pending, PD Feb 2005, EB3 - India
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!
__________________
Attended the DC Rally
Contribution: $150
Sent letters to President/IV
Status : I-485 pending, PD Feb 2005, EB3 - India
GC_1000Watt
07-28 05:42 PM
So, I was talking to one of the attorneys and he mentioned that one should contest the denial within 30 days and as long as it is approved, we don't have any problem. But, if the MTR is rejected, then all the days that have been accumulated after the denial will be in illegal status.
What is the probability of cases of MTR getting approved after the relevant documents have been published?
For the client letter denial reason, did anybody furnish further documents?
Appreciate your inputs
I was in same situation last year and as suggested by a very good lawyer, instead of filing MTR, me and my company re-applied under premium processing. I got the extension with I-94 within 10 days after I re-applied.
MTR is time cosuming and all the time you will be worried about it. Also if MTR gets denied for any reason then you are putting yourself in big trouble.
I would suggest you to reapply with solid paperwork under premium processing. Don't forget to ask your lawyer to include a cover letter telling USCIS about the earlier denial and why they should reconsider the case based on the attached documents.
That worked for me like a dream and hope it works for you as well.
Good luck friend!
What is the probability of cases of MTR getting approved after the relevant documents have been published?
For the client letter denial reason, did anybody furnish further documents?
Appreciate your inputs
I was in same situation last year and as suggested by a very good lawyer, instead of filing MTR, me and my company re-applied under premium processing. I got the extension with I-94 within 10 days after I re-applied.
MTR is time cosuming and all the time you will be worried about it. Also if MTR gets denied for any reason then you are putting yourself in big trouble.
I would suggest you to reapply with solid paperwork under premium processing. Don't forget to ask your lawyer to include a cover letter telling USCIS about the earlier denial and why they should reconsider the case based on the attached documents.
That worked for me like a dream and hope it works for you as well.
Good luck friend!
golucki
07-27 10:24 AM
Nice Idea. Works Great!
fromnaija
07-20 11:24 AM
File for her as CP. Whenever she is ready to move here have her get an H4 visa and then change CP to AOS when she gets here.
Caveat: I am not an attorney so ask your lawyer if this is a feasible option.
Caveat: I am not an attorney so ask your lawyer if this is a feasible option.
h1b_tristate
07-27 08:02 PM
Hi everyone,
I have a question on changing jobs. I am on my second H1b and my h1 expires in a little over a year. I have a possible offer for a job and would like to change. My question is if i DO change jobs right now, can i still apply for my PERM and will i be eligible for further h1b extentions?
A friend mentioned to me that your labour needs to be applied for atleast one whole year (even if it has been approved in PERM), to be able to apply for any kind of H1 extentions.
Can someone on here please tell me what the law is on H1B extentions and how it works exactly in a case like mine.
Thanks
I have a question on changing jobs. I am on my second H1b and my h1 expires in a little over a year. I have a possible offer for a job and would like to change. My question is if i DO change jobs right now, can i still apply for my PERM and will i be eligible for further h1b extentions?
A friend mentioned to me that your labour needs to be applied for atleast one whole year (even if it has been approved in PERM), to be able to apply for any kind of H1 extentions.
Can someone on here please tell me what the law is on H1B extentions and how it works exactly in a case like mine.
Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment