franklin
07-05 02:49 PM
The other thing I don't understand is how come EB-1 and EB-2 which are current (for ROW) atleast can suddenly become U. See my reasoning above. It doesn't matter, the visa numbers were used up. EB3 ROW gobbled up the ROW quotient when retrogression was eased in May and June
Did USCIS stop paying attention to EB-2 vs EB-3 classification? If you are talking about ROW, it doesn't matter. There were no backlogs in processing EB2
How about country limits? Did USCIS give India more than 3K visas? I'd imagine so 7% of 140k is 9800
Also, aren't the visas released quarterly? So, how come the visas that were to be released in July, got consumed in June? Now that is a good question
See answers in purple
Did USCIS stop paying attention to EB-2 vs EB-3 classification? If you are talking about ROW, it doesn't matter. There were no backlogs in processing EB2
How about country limits? Did USCIS give India more than 3K visas? I'd imagine so 7% of 140k is 9800
Also, aren't the visas released quarterly? So, how come the visas that were to be released in July, got consumed in June? Now that is a good question
See answers in purple
wallpaper quotes on school days
dvb123
03-02 09:25 AM
Bump
go_guy123
08-18 12:51 PM
Well if it is clearly mentioned in the offer letter that Employer will cover the GC cost, then isnt the employer supposed to pay for it irrespective of when the labor was filed. It was filed in 2006.
Btw, i am on AOS if that is what was meant from my legal status..
Thanks for all the responses to my thread so far..
WH-4 Form is meant for complaining against employer.
Please search this forum as I had posted this before a couple of times. Dont worry, DOL/USCIS is going gangbusters
after H1B employers. You first threaten sending the link to your employer. Often that works. If they dont budge then
file the WH-4. Unfortunately WH-4 may wreck the H1B petitions/extension of other employees working for that
company(bodyshopper).
Btw, i am on AOS if that is what was meant from my legal status..
Thanks for all the responses to my thread so far..
WH-4 Form is meant for complaining against employer.
Please search this forum as I had posted this before a couple of times. Dont worry, DOL/USCIS is going gangbusters
after H1B employers. You first threaten sending the link to your employer. Often that works. If they dont budge then
file the WH-4. Unfortunately WH-4 may wreck the H1B petitions/extension of other employees working for that
company(bodyshopper).
2011 quotes on school. quotes for
desi485
07-27 12:04 PM
I forgot it initially and later realized that. fortunately my lawyer was still reviewing my papers (almost 4 weeks). so I sent him new copies. He included new copies and discarded old one. .Also some one told me that it should match what you specified in DS-156 at the time of visa interview. IS THIS TRUE?
more...
Blog Feeds
04-26 11:30 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
All eyes are on Governor Jan Brewer today.
On her desk is SB 1070, an anti-immigrant bill which would effectively make all Latinos the target of arrest or interrogation, whether or not they are U.S. citizens, lawful immigrants, or undocumented foreign nationals. Indeed, such a hate-motivated bill may well compel all Latinos to pack up and leave the state. Brewer's choice is clear to anyone who cherishes freedom and democracy�veto SB 1070, and toss it into the dust bin of history where it belongs, together with Jim Crow, the Nazi Nuremberg laws, and South African Apartheid.
But, believe it or not, the Governor is actually considering signing this venomous bill into law. Last night, in yet another surreal Arizona moment Governor Brewer addressed the 41st annual Chicanos Por La Causa anniversary dinner amid calls in the audience for her to veto SB 1070 and surrounded by protesters that chanted and marched outside the Sheraton Phoenix Downtown Hotel where the dinner was held. At the dinner, organization board chairwoman Erica Gonzalez-Melendez urged Brewer to veto "the most hateful piece of legislation directed at Latinos" aptly pointing out that SB 1070 will do nothing to fix our broken immigration system and only "panders to the racist fear mongers of our state." But, Governor Brewer refused to say what she would do, invoking political-speak instead, "I am not prepared to announce a decision on Senate Bill 1070," she said. "What I decide will be based on what's right for Arizona." http://bit.ly/96KJlT. (Note to reader: there have been several surreal moments in Arizona this week. On Monday Senator John McCain, who once described himself as a "maverick" and champion of comprehensive immigration reform, told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly that "the drivers of cars with illegals in it ... are intentionally causing accidents on the freeway." Then on Tuesday an Arizona state House committee approved a measure which would force President Obama to show his birth certificate if he runs for re-election. http://huff.to/9bfpzg)
What is right for Arizona is for Governor Brewer to jealously protect the rights of all its citizens and follow the U.S. Constitution, not turn Arizona into the Fourth Reich. Let's be frank, by passing SB 1070 lawmakers have sold out Arizona taxpayers in a cynical effort to garner votes and look tough. The bill does nothing to build a functional immigration system, secure the border nor rid the state of dangerous criminals. Nor does it protect the wages and working conditions of US workers. Instead, it targets day laborers and ordinary citizens whose appearance might raise "reasonable suspicion" of unlawful immigration status in the mind of a police officer. If Governor Brewer signs SB 1070, people in Arizona with foreign sounding accents or who don't "look American" had better not run into the wrong cop (or even the right cop) because the law mandates they prove they are here legally.
SB 1070 is not the product thoughtful policy making; it is hate speech masquerading as legislation. This sounds extreme until you read SB 1070 which is a hodgepodge of mean spirited provisions that will effectively transform Arizona into a police state for anyone whose skin is a shade other than white. The bill's effect may very well be to make Arizona "Latino Free" and force those who stay behind�U.S. citizens included�to feel like hunted criminals. Frankly, there is no other way to describe SB 1070 which would make not having immigration documents a state crime, allow law enforcement officers to arrest anyone who could not immediately prove they were in the U.S. legally, and subject a brown-skinned person who leaves home without a wallet to arrest. Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles was hardly exaggerating when he compared SB 1070 to "German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation." http://bit.ly/9ZIQ9K.
SB 1070's outright decimation of civil liberties and American values aside, Governor Brewer's signature on the bill will likely reek economic devastation on Arizona, costing its taxpayers billions in lost revenue. The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) reported this week that "if significant numbers of immigrants and Latinos are actually persuaded to leave the state because of this new law, they will take their tax dollars, businesses, and purchasing power with them. The University of Arizona's Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy estimates that the total economic output attributable to Arizona's immigrant workers was $44 billion in 2004, which sustained roughly 400,000 full-time jobs. Furthermore, over 35,000 businesses in Arizona are Latino-owned and had sales and receipts of $4.3 billion and employed 39,363 people in 2002, the last year for which data is available. The Perryman Group estimates that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time. Putting economic contributions of this magnitude at risk during a time of recession would not serve Arizona well." And this loss of revenue to the hard working taxpayers of Arizona does not take into account the cost of defending the inevitable lawsuits that will be brought against the state for civil rights and other violations. According to the IPC, "Arizona would probably face a costly slew of lawsuits on behalf of legal immigrants and native-born Latinos who feel they have been unjustly targeted" leading to millions of dollars in expenditures. http://bit.ly/dbguDK.
As I wrote previously on this blog, SB 1070 is not the problem. It is an awful symptom of the failure of the Administration and Congress to enact immigration reform. In the void, local and state authorities have run roughshod over the civil liberties we cherish as a nation. What we see today is a perfect storm of crises�ICE's neglect and abuse of immigrant detainees which has culminated in 107 deaths in immigration detention since 2003, the serious civil rights abuses in the notorious 287(g) program which is administered by ICE and "deputizes" state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law, and an immigration bureaucracy that thumbs its nose at the needs of American business and families. As a nation we must demand that Congress and the Administration put politics aside and get to the hard work of building a safe, orderly, fair, and functional immigration policy designed to protect civil liberties and serve the needs of all Americans.
As for today, Governor Brewer has a choice. She can succumb to hatred and fear by signing SB 1070 or allowing it to become law without her signature (it is hard to say which would be more cowardly). Or she can show uncommon political courage and veto the bill, thereby drawing a line in the Arizona desert over which racism, intolerance, and injustice dare not cross.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-3162775922361590244?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/04/arizona-governor-jan-brewers-choice.html)
All eyes are on Governor Jan Brewer today.
On her desk is SB 1070, an anti-immigrant bill which would effectively make all Latinos the target of arrest or interrogation, whether or not they are U.S. citizens, lawful immigrants, or undocumented foreign nationals. Indeed, such a hate-motivated bill may well compel all Latinos to pack up and leave the state. Brewer's choice is clear to anyone who cherishes freedom and democracy�veto SB 1070, and toss it into the dust bin of history where it belongs, together with Jim Crow, the Nazi Nuremberg laws, and South African Apartheid.
But, believe it or not, the Governor is actually considering signing this venomous bill into law. Last night, in yet another surreal Arizona moment Governor Brewer addressed the 41st annual Chicanos Por La Causa anniversary dinner amid calls in the audience for her to veto SB 1070 and surrounded by protesters that chanted and marched outside the Sheraton Phoenix Downtown Hotel where the dinner was held. At the dinner, organization board chairwoman Erica Gonzalez-Melendez urged Brewer to veto "the most hateful piece of legislation directed at Latinos" aptly pointing out that SB 1070 will do nothing to fix our broken immigration system and only "panders to the racist fear mongers of our state." But, Governor Brewer refused to say what she would do, invoking political-speak instead, "I am not prepared to announce a decision on Senate Bill 1070," she said. "What I decide will be based on what's right for Arizona." http://bit.ly/96KJlT. (Note to reader: there have been several surreal moments in Arizona this week. On Monday Senator John McCain, who once described himself as a "maverick" and champion of comprehensive immigration reform, told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly that "the drivers of cars with illegals in it ... are intentionally causing accidents on the freeway." Then on Tuesday an Arizona state House committee approved a measure which would force President Obama to show his birth certificate if he runs for re-election. http://huff.to/9bfpzg)
What is right for Arizona is for Governor Brewer to jealously protect the rights of all its citizens and follow the U.S. Constitution, not turn Arizona into the Fourth Reich. Let's be frank, by passing SB 1070 lawmakers have sold out Arizona taxpayers in a cynical effort to garner votes and look tough. The bill does nothing to build a functional immigration system, secure the border nor rid the state of dangerous criminals. Nor does it protect the wages and working conditions of US workers. Instead, it targets day laborers and ordinary citizens whose appearance might raise "reasonable suspicion" of unlawful immigration status in the mind of a police officer. If Governor Brewer signs SB 1070, people in Arizona with foreign sounding accents or who don't "look American" had better not run into the wrong cop (or even the right cop) because the law mandates they prove they are here legally.
SB 1070 is not the product thoughtful policy making; it is hate speech masquerading as legislation. This sounds extreme until you read SB 1070 which is a hodgepodge of mean spirited provisions that will effectively transform Arizona into a police state for anyone whose skin is a shade other than white. The bill's effect may very well be to make Arizona "Latino Free" and force those who stay behind�U.S. citizens included�to feel like hunted criminals. Frankly, there is no other way to describe SB 1070 which would make not having immigration documents a state crime, allow law enforcement officers to arrest anyone who could not immediately prove they were in the U.S. legally, and subject a brown-skinned person who leaves home without a wallet to arrest. Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles was hardly exaggerating when he compared SB 1070 to "German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation." http://bit.ly/9ZIQ9K.
SB 1070's outright decimation of civil liberties and American values aside, Governor Brewer's signature on the bill will likely reek economic devastation on Arizona, costing its taxpayers billions in lost revenue. The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) reported this week that "if significant numbers of immigrants and Latinos are actually persuaded to leave the state because of this new law, they will take their tax dollars, businesses, and purchasing power with them. The University of Arizona's Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy estimates that the total economic output attributable to Arizona's immigrant workers was $44 billion in 2004, which sustained roughly 400,000 full-time jobs. Furthermore, over 35,000 businesses in Arizona are Latino-owned and had sales and receipts of $4.3 billion and employed 39,363 people in 2002, the last year for which data is available. The Perryman Group estimates that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time. Putting economic contributions of this magnitude at risk during a time of recession would not serve Arizona well." And this loss of revenue to the hard working taxpayers of Arizona does not take into account the cost of defending the inevitable lawsuits that will be brought against the state for civil rights and other violations. According to the IPC, "Arizona would probably face a costly slew of lawsuits on behalf of legal immigrants and native-born Latinos who feel they have been unjustly targeted" leading to millions of dollars in expenditures. http://bit.ly/dbguDK.
As I wrote previously on this blog, SB 1070 is not the problem. It is an awful symptom of the failure of the Administration and Congress to enact immigration reform. In the void, local and state authorities have run roughshod over the civil liberties we cherish as a nation. What we see today is a perfect storm of crises�ICE's neglect and abuse of immigrant detainees which has culminated in 107 deaths in immigration detention since 2003, the serious civil rights abuses in the notorious 287(g) program which is administered by ICE and "deputizes" state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law, and an immigration bureaucracy that thumbs its nose at the needs of American business and families. As a nation we must demand that Congress and the Administration put politics aside and get to the hard work of building a safe, orderly, fair, and functional immigration policy designed to protect civil liberties and serve the needs of all Americans.
As for today, Governor Brewer has a choice. She can succumb to hatred and fear by signing SB 1070 or allowing it to become law without her signature (it is hard to say which would be more cowardly). Or she can show uncommon political courage and veto the bill, thereby drawing a line in the Arizona desert over which racism, intolerance, and injustice dare not cross.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-3162775922361590244?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/04/arizona-governor-jan-brewers-choice.html)
krishmunn
09-17 12:08 PM
I had applied for an extension for my parents, just a month before their I-94 was about to end. According to the law (as per my attorney, forums, Internet), they could stay here legally until a decision is made, which may be past the I-94 expiration.
So, in your case, if the decision is Positive, then they can stay until the new I-94 date that USCIS gives them. However, if the decision is Negative, then they have 30 days from the date of the decision to leave the country without being deported.
Hope this helps...
If the extension is denied the person falls out of status immediately and the visa get voided.
Check this from Murthy Chat (answered by Attorney Murthy) --
MurthyDotCom : MurthyChat - Search Transcripts (http://www.murthy.com/chatdb.asp?sFor=extension&Category=visitusa&B1=Search)
Question: Our B-2 extension was denied and the denial letter was received after I-94 departure date. We have a 10-year multiple-entry visitors" visa. Should we apply for the visa again?
Answer: The B-2 visa stamp would remain valid if one departed prior to the receipt of the denial. If the person remained in the U.S., awaiting the decision, then s/he is out of status and unlawfully present as of the date of the extension denial. This would void the individual"s multiple-entry B-2 visitor"s visa in the passport, and require a new visa application at the U.S. consulate abroad in the person"s home country for the next trip to the U.S. This is under section 222(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. If there was a timely departure prior to the decision, the individual attempting to return to the U.S. later, and wishing to use that B-2 stamp, needs to show maintenance of valid B-2 status in the U.S. and proof of departure before the denial decision by the USCIS, by submitting a copy of the airline ticket, boarding card, and other details at the time of all future entries into the U.S. in such a situation.Mar-15-2010.
So, in your case, if the decision is Positive, then they can stay until the new I-94 date that USCIS gives them. However, if the decision is Negative, then they have 30 days from the date of the decision to leave the country without being deported.
Hope this helps...
If the extension is denied the person falls out of status immediately and the visa get voided.
Check this from Murthy Chat (answered by Attorney Murthy) --
MurthyDotCom : MurthyChat - Search Transcripts (http://www.murthy.com/chatdb.asp?sFor=extension&Category=visitusa&B1=Search)
Question: Our B-2 extension was denied and the denial letter was received after I-94 departure date. We have a 10-year multiple-entry visitors" visa. Should we apply for the visa again?
Answer: The B-2 visa stamp would remain valid if one departed prior to the receipt of the denial. If the person remained in the U.S., awaiting the decision, then s/he is out of status and unlawfully present as of the date of the extension denial. This would void the individual"s multiple-entry B-2 visitor"s visa in the passport, and require a new visa application at the U.S. consulate abroad in the person"s home country for the next trip to the U.S. This is under section 222(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. If there was a timely departure prior to the decision, the individual attempting to return to the U.S. later, and wishing to use that B-2 stamp, needs to show maintenance of valid B-2 status in the U.S. and proof of departure before the denial decision by the USCIS, by submitting a copy of the airline ticket, boarding card, and other details at the time of all future entries into the U.S. in such a situation.Mar-15-2010.
more...
summitpointe
04-09 01:06 PM
If I work on EAD and do not get the EAD card before it gets expires, do I need to inform my employer about the status. If I inform them they will be removing my name from the payroll and it will be hard to include it again. It is like my job getting terminated.
2010 quotes on school. quotes on
ArkBird
06-24 03:02 AM
No. as per my lawyer it became unavailable in the middle of the month.
more...
k3GC
07-28 07:51 AM
For every IV member that gets their GC, would it be too much to ask them to contribute say at least $100/- ? May be this can become a norm and the starting point for an "IV Alumni" :)
The folks who will be getting their GC's in the next 2 months can show the way - Along with posting the happy news that you got your GC and of course posting your RD and ND and PD and the fact whether you had AC21 or EAD or whatever :), will it be too much to give something back to the community that helped you all the way?
I think this would be a noble gesture in support of this organization that has supported the cause of lots and lots of employment based immigrants.
"A Small contribution from you, A Giant Win for IV"
The folks who will be getting their GC's in the next 2 months can show the way - Along with posting the happy news that you got your GC and of course posting your RD and ND and PD and the fact whether you had AC21 or EAD or whatever :), will it be too much to give something back to the community that helped you all the way?
I think this would be a noble gesture in support of this organization that has supported the cause of lots and lots of employment based immigrants.
"A Small contribution from you, A Giant Win for IV"
hair famous quotes about school.
purgan
04-26 02:52 PM
vikki76 may have gone a little overboard with the salary statement, but the rest is true....there is simply more information stored in govt databases for a foreign national, hence more rigorous screening is possible
more...
xbohdpukc
02-26 08:26 PM
Can someone please explain, even just in broad strokes, how the Immigration Reform (if passed) would affect someone in EB3 - ROW?
Thanks
No bill text was published yet, so there would be no answer to your questions till then
Thanks
No bill text was published yet, so there would be no answer to your questions till then
hot Funny Quotes School. funny
TelanganaINDIA
10-04 10:55 PM
I am planning to go to India with my family in december. Please suggest some tourist spots across India.
Not the usual ones like tajmahal or gateway of india etc. Thank you.
Not the usual ones like tajmahal or gateway of india etc. Thank you.
more...
house hairstyles quotes about school
lost
07-09 01:12 PM
its a good option to move from eb3 to eb2. Jumping from 2001 to 2005 on VB!
tattoo funny quotes about school.
desi485
01-08 01:20 PM
If you have the case no. go to online case status and take the print out of approved notice, that should serve you purpose hopefully if you don�t have a original copy
I do have case number for I-140
I also took printout of online approval status using the case status number.
But what about labor cert?
I have no idea what was filed for me? job description or salary req.???
All this time I was thinking I am ready for AC21 if needed, but if above is true, I am in trouble. (so many others have same issue)
why we need photocopies? WHY USCIS expects us to have those? They are considered employer documents and most established employers do not share them with employees?
Any one has any idea? Any links? Any official link which states that we do need to have photocopies?
I do have case number for I-140
I also took printout of online approval status using the case status number.
But what about labor cert?
I have no idea what was filed for me? job description or salary req.???
All this time I was thinking I am ready for AC21 if needed, but if above is true, I am in trouble. (so many others have same issue)
why we need photocopies? WHY USCIS expects us to have those? They are considered employer documents and most established employers do not share them with employees?
Any one has any idea? Any links? Any official link which states that we do need to have photocopies?
more...
pictures quotes about school
sodh
07-18 06:30 PM
Did you change your address. Sometimes they send denial at the old address. Also you need a lawyer now with the print out of the page where it lists pending. This forum cant help with this situation as an appeal is needed in your case.
Please follow this advice and answer ASAP.
Please follow this advice and answer ASAP.
dresses quotes about school days
chanduv23
03-20 03:39 PM
yes, looks like a lot of things are going on. before the bill hits the floor, a lot of workarounds, changes etc..... everything happening in closed doors
more...
makeup quotes on school days.
sayantan76
09-24 11:46 AM
My problem with these hearings is that they play soccer with the interests of immigrants. There are pro and anti immigrant views in discussion.
Enforcement is all about closing the borders and deporting immigrants. But why do we not see hearings to discuss and introduce bills that fine the employers and put them in jail if they hire an undocumented? But nobody, not even the anti-immigrant groups are pushing for such a bill. A lot of undocumented problem will be solved if employers cannot hire undocumented. We call immigrants as illegal, but why can't we use the same standard for employers who illegally hire undocumented?
Secondly when they talk about legalization and path to citizenship, there is no country limits for them. But as soon as we talk about removing country limits in front of the same people, we hear talks about diversity etc.
The same people who favor legals in such discussions, become anti-legal when they have a chance to do something for legals. Why a simple bill like recapture not introduced by these same people till now?
Overall Immigration is more about politics, votes than actually solving a problem. If these folks are serious about fixing a problem, a lot could have been done till now. We need to hear more action than just talk.
Pappu - if you were a politician and were taking some actions to benefit future voters in anticipation of creating a vote bank for coming years - would do something for those future voters who when they become eligible use their rational judgement to vote (and hence could vote either way based on issues relevant at that time) or would you rather do something for a group that will vote as a "block" - and therein lies the rationale
Enforcement is all about closing the borders and deporting immigrants. But why do we not see hearings to discuss and introduce bills that fine the employers and put them in jail if they hire an undocumented? But nobody, not even the anti-immigrant groups are pushing for such a bill. A lot of undocumented problem will be solved if employers cannot hire undocumented. We call immigrants as illegal, but why can't we use the same standard for employers who illegally hire undocumented?
Secondly when they talk about legalization and path to citizenship, there is no country limits for them. But as soon as we talk about removing country limits in front of the same people, we hear talks about diversity etc.
The same people who favor legals in such discussions, become anti-legal when they have a chance to do something for legals. Why a simple bill like recapture not introduced by these same people till now?
Overall Immigration is more about politics, votes than actually solving a problem. If these folks are serious about fixing a problem, a lot could have been done till now. We need to hear more action than just talk.
Pappu - if you were a politician and were taking some actions to benefit future voters in anticipation of creating a vote bank for coming years - would do something for those future voters who when they become eligible use their rational judgement to vote (and hence could vote either way based on issues relevant at that time) or would you rather do something for a group that will vote as a "block" - and therein lies the rationale
girlfriend pictures quotes on school
haroontabrez
04-15 10:04 AM
TO mbawa2574 & FUNTIMES
Just follow what TomPlate has said.
I had exactly the same issue (the return was rejected) and I called IRS. They asked me to put 0 in the AGI and it was then accepted.
we had a similar issue,
what happens is that when you efile with IRS, They dont have data that your wife had SSN last year, and they have just the ITIN number. thats the reason efile gets rejected. you need to manually file this year and next year it should be OK to efile.
I am not sure which pacakge you are using to Efile, I had similar problem with HR blocks tax cut software.
Hope this information helps
Thanks
My wife has ITIN till last year and we filed jointly. This year she has a social security number and we filed using social security number. Return was rejected by IRS saying that my wife's last year's AGI is wrong. Has anyone run into this ? What was the resolution ?
Just follow what TomPlate has said.
I had exactly the same issue (the return was rejected) and I called IRS. They asked me to put 0 in the AGI and it was then accepted.
we had a similar issue,
what happens is that when you efile with IRS, They dont have data that your wife had SSN last year, and they have just the ITIN number. thats the reason efile gets rejected. you need to manually file this year and next year it should be OK to efile.
I am not sure which pacakge you are using to Efile, I had similar problem with HR blocks tax cut software.
Hope this information helps
Thanks
My wife has ITIN till last year and we filed jointly. This year she has a social security number and we filed using social security number. Return was rejected by IRS saying that my wife's last year's AGI is wrong. Has anyone run into this ? What was the resolution ?
hairstyles cute quotes about school
vxg
09-18 04:09 PM
vxg...I disagree with your statement that "stamp...can be forged'. Anything can be forged (e.g. passport, money). If the I-551 is legit what do you have to be afraid of?
wandmaker is correct. Take infopass, tell them you may have to travel soon and get the stamp. I've done it...nothing wrong with that. By the way, since your I-485 is approved, your AP is no longer valid and you should not use it.
What is stated came from my lawyer and a friend of mine ran into trouble in India where immigration folks gave him hard time and did not believe the stamp when he was returning. At US entry point you will be OK with stamp however you need approval notice as local office will not stamp passport without you having the notice.
wandmaker is correct. Take infopass, tell them you may have to travel soon and get the stamp. I've done it...nothing wrong with that. By the way, since your I-485 is approved, your AP is no longer valid and you should not use it.
What is stated came from my lawyer and a friend of mine ran into trouble in India where immigration folks gave him hard time and did not believe the stamp when he was returning. At US entry point you will be OK with stamp however you need approval notice as local office will not stamp passport without you having the notice.
BMS1
07-31 11:52 PM
It happened for my son's application. I did not even have a copy of the check at that time. I resent it with a new check (after retrogression set in) saying that it was their mistake. They sent it back along with the new check again saying no visa is available on the date of submission. Then I read some where in immigration-law website you need to mark it to certain officer (I do not remember exact wordings - check immigration-law archives around sep 2005). I re-sent it to that officer explaining everything again and it was accepted. My son's receipt date Sep 30 but the notice date was somewhere in Nov. due to all these correspondence.
purgan
04-26 02:52 PM
vikki76 may have gone a little overboard with the salary statement, but the rest is true....there is simply more information stored in govt databases for a foreign national, hence more rigorous screening is possible
0 comments:
Post a Comment