senthil1
06-26 01:35 PM
The main reason for this kind of fear is many people waited more than 5 years and PD was moving 2 weeks per 3 months. Suddenly PD become current everyone could not believe themselves and still Skeptical about it. This kind of PD movements happened many times in past. This kind of fear is unneccessary and try to file I485 ASAP to get earliest Receipt date.
Logiclife,
All I am saying is, the DOS or USCIS can be unpredictible at times. I know TECHNICALLY there is NO way the July bulletin can retrogress IN JULY. However I would NOT be surprised if that happens. Coz this suddenly creates a FLOOD of Ead applications and AP applications not to mention Finger printing.
Logiclife,
All I am saying is, the DOS or USCIS can be unpredictible at times. I know TECHNICALLY there is NO way the July bulletin can retrogress IN JULY. However I would NOT be surprised if that happens. Coz this suddenly creates a FLOOD of Ead applications and AP applications not to mention Finger printing.
wallpaper the 2010 Tour de Suisse,
alisa
06-27 10:00 PM
Yes I agree.. But if they don't move date foward then they can't approve those backlog applications.And they don't want to loose 40,000 visas . Now when they made all date current, they can approve all those pending application which are complete and just waiting for date to become current. Now we don't know real number and don't know how long it will take USCIS to do all approvals. But if they approve 40,000 in 2 weeks, I won't be surprised if they make it 'U' like other workers.
But then question still remains why they made all current. They could have just moved it by year or so.. And I am sure they know how many application they can expect in July.. I already saw some where that we have around more then 80,000 approved perm.. All they going to apply.. And what about all whose labor just got approved fro Backlog centers?
Its making everybody confused.. But its not in our hand and we can't do anything. Best thing is to file asap and just hope for best and we are always ready for worst..
Just think if they make date 'U' in middle of july, how many member going to loose money. Each of us spent so much money this month and if nothing happens that we loose all of it.
Are you sure about 80000 PERM?
I recall seeing somewhere that for the entire 2006, there were about 6000 PERMs.
But then question still remains why they made all current. They could have just moved it by year or so.. And I am sure they know how many application they can expect in July.. I already saw some where that we have around more then 80,000 approved perm.. All they going to apply.. And what about all whose labor just got approved fro Backlog centers?
Its making everybody confused.. But its not in our hand and we can't do anything. Best thing is to file asap and just hope for best and we are always ready for worst..
Just think if they make date 'U' in middle of july, how many member going to loose money. Each of us spent so much money this month and if nothing happens that we loose all of it.
Are you sure about 80000 PERM?
I recall seeing somewhere that for the entire 2006, there were about 6000 PERMs.
alisa
02-13 01:44 PM
Are you suggesting that IV's efforts would increase the wait times for ROW?
What incentive does ROW have to work with IV then?
It has been repeated 'Ad Nauseam' times. IVs agenda includes all of these -
1) Increasing GC numbers
2) Recapturing numbers and instituting permanent Rollover mechanisms
3) Eliminate country quotas.
IV understands that removing just the country quota will impact ROW badly if visa numbers are not increased in tandem. Hence you always see the three points being proposed together. These 3 have to go together. A compromise between ROW and oversubscribed countries.
But some ROW members keep trying to split the movement by opposing removal of country quotas ( which is point 2 in IV agenda) at every possible opportunity. Real way to build a coalition is through compromise. And in a compromise you can't get all you want. Don't expect the majority to heed all your demands.
Be a little appreciative of the sufferings of others. If you think a little extra time you need to spend in the queue is turning you so angry, what goes in the mind of a person who has to spend twice or thrice as much time in the same queue, for no fault of his/hers?
Don't BS on 'diversity'. There is already a 'diversity visa' which Indians & Chinese cannot use. Want to come under diversity? Apply in the lottery. Be a little humane and think about the suffering of others. May be you'll see the light. You are not going to win many friends by alleging "an agenda by some country". It's preposturous, laughable and Dobbsian ( like Lou Dobbs alleged "invasion by Mexicans")
What incentive does ROW have to work with IV then?
It has been repeated 'Ad Nauseam' times. IVs agenda includes all of these -
1) Increasing GC numbers
2) Recapturing numbers and instituting permanent Rollover mechanisms
3) Eliminate country quotas.
IV understands that removing just the country quota will impact ROW badly if visa numbers are not increased in tandem. Hence you always see the three points being proposed together. These 3 have to go together. A compromise between ROW and oversubscribed countries.
But some ROW members keep trying to split the movement by opposing removal of country quotas ( which is point 2 in IV agenda) at every possible opportunity. Real way to build a coalition is through compromise. And in a compromise you can't get all you want. Don't expect the majority to heed all your demands.
Be a little appreciative of the sufferings of others. If you think a little extra time you need to spend in the queue is turning you so angry, what goes in the mind of a person who has to spend twice or thrice as much time in the same queue, for no fault of his/hers?
Don't BS on 'diversity'. There is already a 'diversity visa' which Indians & Chinese cannot use. Want to come under diversity? Apply in the lottery. Be a little humane and think about the suffering of others. May be you'll see the light. You are not going to win many friends by alleging "an agenda by some country". It's preposturous, laughable and Dobbsian ( like Lou Dobbs alleged "invasion by Mexicans")
2011 images 2010 tour de france
villamonte6100
12-14 02:50 PM
Thank you very much for pointing that out. I really appreciate it.
His/Her country of origin and the state chapter is not really relevent for this discussion now, is it?
:cool:
His/Her country of origin and the state chapter is not really relevent for this discussion now, is it?
:cool:
more...
bkarnik
06-28 12:46 PM
Good idea. But I am going to TSC.
Won't help you...485s are to be filed at NSC irrespective of where you are filing from.
Won't help you...485s are to be filed at NSC irrespective of where you are filing from.
gchandu
07-29 05:41 PM
Hi
I am on H1B and have my visa valid till Sep 30 2008, my wife and son also has H4 visas till Sep 30 2008.
I applied for my H1 & H4 extensions, received the receipt notices from NSC and our case are pending.
Now We are travelling to India on 7th Aug 2008 and return on 11th Sep 2008 about 19 days prior to our initial H1 / H4 visa stamps.
Should I need to do an amendment to my pending H1/H4 if they get approved while I was in India? If the extention cases wont approve even after I come back to US , do I still need an amendment when it gets approved.
Please suggest a best possible way
Thanks
Gangadhar
I am on H1B and have my visa valid till Sep 30 2008, my wife and son also has H4 visas till Sep 30 2008.
I applied for my H1 & H4 extensions, received the receipt notices from NSC and our case are pending.
Now We are travelling to India on 7th Aug 2008 and return on 11th Sep 2008 about 19 days prior to our initial H1 / H4 visa stamps.
Should I need to do an amendment to my pending H1/H4 if they get approved while I was in India? If the extention cases wont approve even after I come back to US , do I still need an amendment when it gets approved.
Please suggest a best possible way
Thanks
Gangadhar
more...
soljabhai
12-13 10:43 AM
Hello All,
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
2010 2010 Tour de France Viewing
ryan
08-18 03:46 PM
Guys,
In my humble opinion this is the best thing that could have happened!!! I feel bad for Mr. Khan suffering like a common man for a while but his suffering brought to light what we have to deal with every time we travel...
I think extreme cases bring home the point so I would encourage Indian government and the governments of all the south asian countries to take this up with the USCIS / Home land security and ask them to educate their staff...
Peace
btw...given some of the clowns on this form, I just want to say I haven't given you a thumps down (or an up). I respect what you have to say, even though we disagree.
In my humble opinion this is the best thing that could have happened!!! I feel bad for Mr. Khan suffering like a common man for a while but his suffering brought to light what we have to deal with every time we travel...
I think extreme cases bring home the point so I would encourage Indian government and the governments of all the south asian countries to take this up with the USCIS / Home land security and ask them to educate their staff...
Peace
btw...given some of the clowns on this form, I just want to say I haven't given you a thumps down (or an up). I respect what you have to say, even though we disagree.
more...
alterego
06-27 10:34 PM
My 2 cents.
USCIS does not control the PD dates, State dept does. The state dept will change the PD's to when it runs out of visas to provide USCIS.
Case 1: Assume USCIS and State dept are in close touch over the currently approvable I-485s which can consume visas starting July 1
If USCIS has 40K such approvable apps, then the State Dept (being in close coordination with USCIS abt numbers) would have just moved the dates to Nov 2005 for EB-2 India the date when it retrogressed and similarly to the date when EB-3 retrogression first happened for India.
The fact that they did not do this means they do not have the sufficient numbers of approvable ones. Now the new ones filed in June or July will not become approvable until at least 90 days. So if they are hoping that some of the "new" 485 petitions filed in June/July will be straightforward enuf to approve in 4 months, they have to keep dates at current at least until July end.
Case 2: USCIS and State dept are not coordinating "closely" over the approvable numbers
This means the State dept arbitrarily changed the dates to Current instead of consulting with USCIS that they have 40K approvable petitions. And why woudl they in that case make the numbers unavailable in mid-july in that case?
Lastly even if the numbers can become Unavailable it has to be announced by State Dept. So worst case scenario it can become "U" in July 11-15, which makes the claim by Matthew-OH that it can become unavailable in July first week itself ridiculous.
I suspect that at the end of last month they did not have a lot of approvable 485 cases that were BOTH:
1) Cleared namechecks.
and
2) From countries other than CHINDIA.
Hence they decided to move the dates to make use of the visa numbers. The majority of approvals you will see now will be those that conform to the above criteria. When they(the visas) are done they are done!
I don't expect to see any of the 485s filed now to get approved anytime soon unless for some strange reason dates remain current until Sept............then you might see a few lucky ones squeeze through. So new 485 filers hold your breath until atleast next year!
Come July 1st week, brace for a flood of celebratory postings online as the pre-approved cases get formally sent out letters.
Come October if not earlier it will be normal service resumed, with massively retrogressed dates for CHINDIA, and mild to moderate retrogression for ROW.
USCIS does not control the PD dates, State dept does. The state dept will change the PD's to when it runs out of visas to provide USCIS.
Case 1: Assume USCIS and State dept are in close touch over the currently approvable I-485s which can consume visas starting July 1
If USCIS has 40K such approvable apps, then the State Dept (being in close coordination with USCIS abt numbers) would have just moved the dates to Nov 2005 for EB-2 India the date when it retrogressed and similarly to the date when EB-3 retrogression first happened for India.
The fact that they did not do this means they do not have the sufficient numbers of approvable ones. Now the new ones filed in June or July will not become approvable until at least 90 days. So if they are hoping that some of the "new" 485 petitions filed in June/July will be straightforward enuf to approve in 4 months, they have to keep dates at current at least until July end.
Case 2: USCIS and State dept are not coordinating "closely" over the approvable numbers
This means the State dept arbitrarily changed the dates to Current instead of consulting with USCIS that they have 40K approvable petitions. And why woudl they in that case make the numbers unavailable in mid-july in that case?
Lastly even if the numbers can become Unavailable it has to be announced by State Dept. So worst case scenario it can become "U" in July 11-15, which makes the claim by Matthew-OH that it can become unavailable in July first week itself ridiculous.
I suspect that at the end of last month they did not have a lot of approvable 485 cases that were BOTH:
1) Cleared namechecks.
and
2) From countries other than CHINDIA.
Hence they decided to move the dates to make use of the visa numbers. The majority of approvals you will see now will be those that conform to the above criteria. When they(the visas) are done they are done!
I don't expect to see any of the 485s filed now to get approved anytime soon unless for some strange reason dates remain current until Sept............then you might see a few lucky ones squeeze through. So new 485 filers hold your breath until atleast next year!
Come July 1st week, brace for a flood of celebratory postings online as the pre-approved cases get formally sent out letters.
Come October if not earlier it will be normal service resumed, with massively retrogressed dates for CHINDIA, and mild to moderate retrogression for ROW.
hair house 2010 Tour De France
snathan
01-15 03:16 PM
Is IV fighting for all of us on this?
People are just discussing and discussing but nobody is doing anything. Are any lawyers doing anything?
You step up do something...rather than wasting time.
People are just discussing and discussing but nobody is doing anything. Are any lawyers doing anything?
You step up do something...rather than wasting time.
more...
Marphad
04-20 02:08 PM
GCKaMaara is right, different people operate at different IQ level.
When there is so much of repeated junk in this thread from the people who think they are political strategist, then what's wrong in posting a fun youtube video twice?
.
I can only laugh at you(r post).
When there is so much of repeated junk in this thread from the people who think they are political strategist, then what's wrong in posting a fun youtube video twice?
.
I can only laugh at you(r post).
hot BMC 2010 Tour de France team
ksircar
01-28 08:43 AM
We should not discuss this type of advertisements in this forum, we are giving them indirect publicity.
more...
house ikes, 2008 Tour de France
DareYouFireMe
04-29 01:05 PM
I am not sure why it is referred as abuse...
It is available to everybody.
It is available to everybody.
tattoo the 2010 Tour de France.
cinqsit
01-13 08:28 PM
I think this is a good development.
Its good for consultants as they will now get a chance to be employee of primary vendor - no more "layers" and "layers" of consulting companies taking cut out of their share.
Certainly a doomsday for these small consulting companies which in my opinion had no business taking cut (literally for doing nothing - many times just sending out monthly invoices) out the consultants pay anyway
Its good for consultants as they will now get a chance to be employee of primary vendor - no more "layers" and "layers" of consulting companies taking cut out of their share.
Certainly a doomsday for these small consulting companies which in my opinion had no business taking cut (literally for doing nothing - many times just sending out monthly invoices) out the consultants pay anyway
more...
pictures Tour de France 2010 could be
jeet
07-03 11:54 AM
I have applied for 485 last year and I already have I-140 approved so I meet the criteria for AC21.
My question is that I have not applied for EAD and I am still on H1 with same employer. In case I lose job will I be considered out of status immediately for the reason that I am not using EAD. As I understand being on EAD allows some flexibility in gap in employment until the time of approval of 485 application.
My question is that I have not applied for EAD and I am still on H1 with same employer. In case I lose job will I be considered out of status immediately for the reason that I am not using EAD. As I understand being on EAD allows some flexibility in gap in employment until the time of approval of 485 application.
dresses year#39;s Tour de France.
chanduv23
07-04 11:21 AM
DEAR MEMBERS - I JUST SPOKE TO SERTASHEEP AND THE FOLLOWING WAS DISCUSSED.
We are still working on the proper approach and text that must be used to address this issue - folks like Macaca and gang are doing a great job.
That said - please be careful in the language you use. Let us not bad mouth the agencies and keep cheast beating - remember such a thing will work against us. We are benefeciaries and we must only focus on our issues and also convey the message in a positive way.
In external discussion forums - do not get offensive with anyone who tries to oppose us. These things work against us.
REMEMBER, WHAT DRIVES PEOPLE IS NOT REALITY BUT PERCEPTION. WE CAN SHOW ALL DATA AND RECORDS THAT WE ARE RIGHT AND THEY ARE WRONG, BUT THEY ARE DRIVEN ONLY BY PERCEPTION.
If any of you plan to post any external messages or discuss externally or communicate with law makers, media or other websites or even your friends are planning to do it - please run it through Macaca and other forum gurus.
Have a great holiday - today.
We are still working on the proper approach and text that must be used to address this issue - folks like Macaca and gang are doing a great job.
That said - please be careful in the language you use. Let us not bad mouth the agencies and keep cheast beating - remember such a thing will work against us. We are benefeciaries and we must only focus on our issues and also convey the message in a positive way.
In external discussion forums - do not get offensive with anyone who tries to oppose us. These things work against us.
REMEMBER, WHAT DRIVES PEOPLE IS NOT REALITY BUT PERCEPTION. WE CAN SHOW ALL DATA AND RECORDS THAT WE ARE RIGHT AND THEY ARE WRONG, BUT THEY ARE DRIVEN ONLY BY PERCEPTION.
If any of you plan to post any external messages or discuss externally or communicate with law makers, media or other websites or even your friends are planning to do it - please run it through Macaca and other forum gurus.
Have a great holiday - today.
more...
makeup 2010 Tour De France Sky Team
rishimehta
09-12 05:25 PM
I worked for the company X for 5 Years . During this period My labor was approved in PERM in EB3 PD 05/15/2006. My I - 140 was alos approved Sep 2006 in EB3. I left the company X & started to work for another technology company Y. In July of 2007, I applied for the I-485 via Company X based on Future employment. I-485 is pending since July 2, 2007. Also applied for EAD & Advance parole which latter got approved. Meanwhile, I have an old labor pending with Company X which got approved with PD of Jan 23, 2003 in EB 2 Category. Company X applied for I-140 based In EB2 PD Jan 2003. This I -140 got approved in May 2008. Company X requested Interfiling with USCIS. Meanwhile I Changed jod & started working for company Z with H1B Transfer.
Here are my questions:
Can I revoke AC21 with my new company Z?
What happens if Company X closes before my I-485 is approved or an RFE is received.
What should I do to minimize risk in getting Green card. Note that Company X is not in a very Good financial position currently.
Your response is aapprciated.
Here are my questions:
Can I revoke AC21 with my new company Z?
What happens if Company X closes before my I-485 is approved or an RFE is received.
What should I do to minimize risk in getting Green card. Note that Company X is not in a very Good financial position currently.
Your response is aapprciated.
girlfriend 2010 tour de france bikes. the
paskal
12-13 01:28 PM
--Any country's immigration policy has to have some control measures built into it. I cannot imagine any country opening its gates wide open for the entire world to migrate into her without any limitations. So the question is, whom to "restrict" and whom to allow? This leads to the same argument, do you see this "restriction" as discrimination? There are others who see as fair "reservation" for them.
there is no "reservation", the nature of the clause is a cap, it does not give another country a minimum quota, it is written as a restrictive provision. and again- just because it benefits someone else does not make discrimination "right", in the strictest sense. right and wrong when it comes to discrimination are not relative. and if you believe they are, it's mighty slippery slope my friend because it does not take time to find yourself on the other side.
--Good question. If we look at what qualifies a country to be included in the lottery program (oversubscription etc?), it would again lead to the "balancing" intent with regards to immigration.
so why the double dipping? if the balancing is done, why the country quota? the result is that as i said more bangladeshis come in than indians...so what does over subscription mean in the end? again...why the need for the diversity lottery? the country quota already balances things....or not?
"either it's wrong or right. the caste system is wrong, from every side of the fence. it may benefit some and hurt others. but it's wrong, wrong and wrong.
same for this country quota. sure it helps some, and looks good from "their side of the fence". that does not change the fact that it is wrong."
--You are opining that it is wrong. You cannot state that it is a fact
you sound suspiciously supportive of the caste system. i will say it again. such a system is wrong. i do not care which side of the fence you are on. was depriving blacks from voting wrong? or was it ok from the white side of the fence? please think before you post.
there is a difference between "something benefiting me so i justify it and fight to keep it" and being right or fair. everyone fights to keep what they have. sorry, still not right. and if you still feel the caste system can be justified as right from your (or any) side of the fence then let's stop here, we have no common ground. and i speak as someone with sufficiently "high caste" to have not suffered from it (so you know my side of the fence).
one last thing, i find it hard to believe you are terming as "right" the idea that I as an individual should be held back 10 years longer than my colleague because of where i was born. any way i look at it...sorry...just not right.
there is no "reservation", the nature of the clause is a cap, it does not give another country a minimum quota, it is written as a restrictive provision. and again- just because it benefits someone else does not make discrimination "right", in the strictest sense. right and wrong when it comes to discrimination are not relative. and if you believe they are, it's mighty slippery slope my friend because it does not take time to find yourself on the other side.
--Good question. If we look at what qualifies a country to be included in the lottery program (oversubscription etc?), it would again lead to the "balancing" intent with regards to immigration.
so why the double dipping? if the balancing is done, why the country quota? the result is that as i said more bangladeshis come in than indians...so what does over subscription mean in the end? again...why the need for the diversity lottery? the country quota already balances things....or not?
"either it's wrong or right. the caste system is wrong, from every side of the fence. it may benefit some and hurt others. but it's wrong, wrong and wrong.
same for this country quota. sure it helps some, and looks good from "their side of the fence". that does not change the fact that it is wrong."
--You are opining that it is wrong. You cannot state that it is a fact
you sound suspiciously supportive of the caste system. i will say it again. such a system is wrong. i do not care which side of the fence you are on. was depriving blacks from voting wrong? or was it ok from the white side of the fence? please think before you post.
there is a difference between "something benefiting me so i justify it and fight to keep it" and being right or fair. everyone fights to keep what they have. sorry, still not right. and if you still feel the caste system can be justified as right from your (or any) side of the fence then let's stop here, we have no common ground. and i speak as someone with sufficiently "high caste" to have not suffered from it (so you know my side of the fence).
one last thing, i find it hard to believe you are terming as "right" the idea that I as an individual should be held back 10 years longer than my colleague because of where i was born. any way i look at it...sorry...just not right.
hairstyles 2010 tour de france bikes
acruix
07-13 04:07 PM
http://www.immigrantslist.org/page/petition/Chertoff
JunRN
09-23 03:26 PM
Judiciary committee is busy talking about horses...instead of houses....maybe we should say we will buy horses instead if they give greencard...
just kiddin'
just kiddin'
nomi
09-29 01:19 PM
Hi Kukitron and all,
I am having a new h1b with validity 7/2009. But My Visa expired by Aug,2006. Please clarify, can i travel from canada to Seattle thro Road with the expired visa and the new h1b which contains a valid I-94
Thanks
Sundar
Yes you can according to following rule
http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/te...ams_1441.html#
There are lot of condition which you need to follow in order to use this Law. That`s why I am asking other people about it and see how many people use it and what they said about it.
I am having a new h1b with validity 7/2009. But My Visa expired by Aug,2006. Please clarify, can i travel from canada to Seattle thro Road with the expired visa and the new h1b which contains a valid I-94
Thanks
Sundar
Yes you can according to following rule
http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/te...ams_1441.html#
There are lot of condition which you need to follow in order to use this Law. That`s why I am asking other people about it and see how many people use it and what they said about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment