shana04
01-15 09:26 AM
Today me and my wife got our CPO emails. Mine was filed in Eb3 and my wife's was in Eb2. I got my approved though my wife.
I've been in US for 10 years... now i've two things to do
Foremost congrats.
I am happy that at least some of our friends are getting greened.
Good luck on your future!
I've been in US for 10 years... now i've two things to do
Foremost congrats.
I am happy that at least some of our friends are getting greened.
Good luck on your future!
days_go_by
09-12 07:27 PM
thanks for correcting me, This is the true advantage of a forum.
xbohdpukc
03-05 02:57 PM
I guess that's how much they value the American Dream, so let it be, I'll pay that price, no prob.
vishwak
08-13 11:08 AM
I did not Change status, I extended h4 Status; In fact USCIS gave us the approval and now we are again waiting for her EAD renewal to come in soon.
Its been less than 100 days....
Did she get Paystub, If not you are good.
I don't think she can have both H4 & EAD. But once she started working on EAD and got paystub....Paid taxes etc.....I'm sure her status will be EAD and no H4 furthur...By any chance if USCIS got hold of it. Might cause problem for her 485 approval.
USCIS gives whatever we ask for. We should be careful and take advise from Attorneys. Not one 2-3 Attorneys as some of the attorneys have limit knowledge. Best suggestions your Employer if he has good knowledge.....As they might have seen lot of cases for their employers.
Its been less than 100 days....
Did she get Paystub, If not you are good.
I don't think she can have both H4 & EAD. But once she started working on EAD and got paystub....Paid taxes etc.....I'm sure her status will be EAD and no H4 furthur...By any chance if USCIS got hold of it. Might cause problem for her 485 approval.
USCIS gives whatever we ask for. We should be careful and take advise from Attorneys. Not one 2-3 Attorneys as some of the attorneys have limit knowledge. Best suggestions your Employer if he has good knowledge.....As they might have seen lot of cases for their employers.
more...
Rayyan
08-04 12:52 PM
Please http://www.indiacgny.org/
under Consular services----> passport----> name change.
It is pretyy easy.
Thx
under Consular services----> passport----> name change.
It is pretyy easy.
Thx
EkAurAaya
03-20 10:26 AM
if you are foreign national selling a house, 10 % of your sale price may be held in escrow account till you pay the taxes. This is the case in atleast some states. This is what your real estate lawyer might be referring to. The rest 10 % is released after you have shown proof that you have paid your taxes.
Thanks you pointed me in the right direction... very interesting its called FIRPTA
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=105000,00.html
Anyone investing in Real estate should read this
Thanks you pointed me in the right direction... very interesting its called FIRPTA
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=105000,00.html
Anyone investing in Real estate should read this
more...
RayP
12-10 04:44 AM
Friends... does anybody have some idea.
alkg
08-13 08:41 PM
see the paragraph in bold letters.................
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
more...
gcinterview
06-11 04:45 PM
I completed my interview in mount laurel, NJ. Went well, in the end, was told no visa numbers available took my I94 from passport. Sigh!!! numbers were available until last month(:-(). Any way was given a letter stating case would be held in abeyance until priority date becomes current. They are advising me not to travel until you get the green card, they say it would be finalized soon. Any one in similar situation?
I'm a new member on this forum and my case got transferred to MOUNT LAUREL, NJ office.
History:
My 485 was filed in NSC in July'2007.
I have 2 I-140 petitions, and dates are current(Eb2 India).
Code 3 FP done in Dec'2007 and Name check and FBI background checks cleared.
Case got transferred from NSC to local office in April'2009
After about 8 days of transfer to the local office I received Code 1 Finger print notices.
What does that mean? Any one had similar experiences?
Here is the message I got last month.
We transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our MOUNT LAUREL, NJ location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case. We sent you a notice of this transfer. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case has been sent to our, MOUNT LAUREL, NJ location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
I'm a new member on this forum and my case got transferred to MOUNT LAUREL, NJ office.
History:
My 485 was filed in NSC in July'2007.
I have 2 I-140 petitions, and dates are current(Eb2 India).
Code 3 FP done in Dec'2007 and Name check and FBI background checks cleared.
Case got transferred from NSC to local office in April'2009
After about 8 days of transfer to the local office I received Code 1 Finger print notices.
What does that mean? Any one had similar experiences?
Here is the message I got last month.
We transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our MOUNT LAUREL, NJ location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case. We sent you a notice of this transfer. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case has been sent to our, MOUNT LAUREL, NJ location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
looivy
08-14 12:02 PM
My lawyer sent my I-485 to Vermont instead of Nebraska. I don't know what to do now. I am in lot of stress.
Can I send another application before Aug 17th. I have not got rejection on first one. Will this confuse USCIS?
Gurus, please advice
(BTW I have an approved I-140.)
Can I send another application before Aug 17th. I have not got rejection on first one. Will this confuse USCIS?
Gurus, please advice
(BTW I have an approved I-140.)
more...
whiteStallion
03-14 05:17 AM
Congratulations !!!
needhelp!
04-10 05:27 PM
Please continue to post bugs and suggestions.
more...
gcloner
03-28 02:39 PM
until today my I485 was 60 days outside the processing times.
Now it is not.
I had previously inquired (service request) what's up, I was told by phone they cannot even process SR because they are more than 60 days behind published dates.
Things that caused Nebraska to move back:
Transfers from Texas Service Center
180 day name check rule
Some categories moving forward in VB, and they had not been doing pre-adjudication.
They are trying to make processing dates reflect reality (and reduce service requests)
The only logical thing was to move the processing date back, if only to reduce the service requests coming in.
I don't know if they still have to process my SR, it was raised when 60 days behind, but now it is only about 34 days behind.
This is some sign of some LIMITED attempt to process as FIFO for receipt date.
hi there! but what if mine's rcpt date is july 21? the last processing time was July 30, 2007??? my friend who has a rcpt date of July 19 got her gc already. Do you think they already finished processing the cases from July 20-July 30?? cause its been a month and they should finish it before they moved back because it's just 10 freakin days! right? last january 2008 they processed from april 2007-June 19 (my friend had hers already).. im so upset
Now it is not.
I had previously inquired (service request) what's up, I was told by phone they cannot even process SR because they are more than 60 days behind published dates.
Things that caused Nebraska to move back:
Transfers from Texas Service Center
180 day name check rule
Some categories moving forward in VB, and they had not been doing pre-adjudication.
They are trying to make processing dates reflect reality (and reduce service requests)
The only logical thing was to move the processing date back, if only to reduce the service requests coming in.
I don't know if they still have to process my SR, it was raised when 60 days behind, but now it is only about 34 days behind.
This is some sign of some LIMITED attempt to process as FIFO for receipt date.
hi there! but what if mine's rcpt date is july 21? the last processing time was July 30, 2007??? my friend who has a rcpt date of July 19 got her gc already. Do you think they already finished processing the cases from July 20-July 30?? cause its been a month and they should finish it before they moved back because it's just 10 freakin days! right? last january 2008 they processed from april 2007-June 19 (my friend had hers already).. im so upset
anandrajesh
08-15 11:55 AM
USCIS is making contradictory statements. First they release an update that they have processed all applications mailed before July 1 but when I call customer service and tell them that my application was mailed on June 11 and that I am still waiting for the checks to be cashed they say wait for 90 days.
Welcome to the Weird World of USCIS where there are no rules to be followed.
Welcome to the Weird World of USCIS where there are no rules to be followed.
more...
Munna Bhai
12-14 09:42 AM
Munnabhai,
I have recevied I-140 RFE on all of the above u mentioned 1,2,3. i have 3 years degree.Labour doesnt match with edu.i am hpoing to get reject :).thats what attorney saying.
If you are serious..then be careful and prepare yourself to transfer H1b and start GC fresh.
I have recevied I-140 RFE on all of the above u mentioned 1,2,3. i have 3 years degree.Labour doesnt match with edu.i am hpoing to get reject :).thats what attorney saying.
If you are serious..then be careful and prepare yourself to transfer H1b and start GC fresh.
rajuram
05-06 11:17 PM
I am a jul 2007 filer, EB3 India, Priority Date 4/2002.
Around 10 days ago, I got a soft lud for the first time on my 485!!! Since my PD is not current, why would LUD change? Does it mean that they are looking at it?
Around 10 days ago, I got a soft lud for the first time on my 485!!! Since my PD is not current, why would LUD change? Does it mean that they are looking at it?
more...
shree19772000
08-08 05:54 PM
Hi All,
I am sure there will be some sort of immigration reform worked out by the mid next year. So please stay calm and enjoy! Eventually you will get your EAD and GC. You just have to hang in there.
peace........
I am sure there will be some sort of immigration reform worked out by the mid next year. So please stay calm and enjoy! Eventually you will get your EAD and GC. You just have to hang in there.
peace........
ganeshpv
05-01 01:26 PM
Yeah.. I realized that. And I think I can qualify for emergency appt. BUT that wasn't my question. My question was do I HAVE to go to Chennai or can I get it done in Bangalore (they have an office that seems to have drop box like feature).
partha_vus
06-15 10:52 PM
Thanks for the reply.
But i filed GC 6 times i had three approved I 140's with different priority dates.
I missed filing my 485 couple times.
thanks,
But i filed GC 6 times i had three approved I 140's with different priority dates.
I missed filing my 485 couple times.
thanks,
sameet
04-14 03:20 PM
With AC21, any employer with same/similar job description as in LC, can sponsor you (meaning promise to employ you upon your getting getting GC, and you agreeing to be their employee). In the meantime, you may be working for anybody, but not working for the sponsoring employer, might raise doubts of your and sponsoring employer's real intentions, resulting in RFE/interview etc.
Six month rule is just a general guideline. Intent behind this is that sponsoring was genuine, not just to get you GC. Circumstances can always change, before or soon after your getting GC for which you might want to keep documentation, just in case.
Let me get this straight:
I have a pending 485 through employer A and then switch my H1B to Employer B. In that case, if I file AC21 through Employer B as long as the position is same/similar (meaning in the same classification with similar responsibilities) will it cause any issues in getting a green card? Note that I will already be working for Employer B when I get the GC.
Just wondering if this situation would raise doubts in the IO's mind.
Six month rule is just a general guideline. Intent behind this is that sponsoring was genuine, not just to get you GC. Circumstances can always change, before or soon after your getting GC for which you might want to keep documentation, just in case.
Let me get this straight:
I have a pending 485 through employer A and then switch my H1B to Employer B. In that case, if I file AC21 through Employer B as long as the position is same/similar (meaning in the same classification with similar responsibilities) will it cause any issues in getting a green card? Note that I will already be working for Employer B when I get the GC.
Just wondering if this situation would raise doubts in the IO's mind.
wandmaker
08-17 02:14 AM
Thanks for the valuable inputs.
Applying for premium processing with Company C seems to be best option. However sometimes premium processing takes more than 15 days to get a result. Since Company B has indicated that they will terminate my employment by the end of this month (less than 15 days from now), I may not have the option of resigning from Company B, before getting Company C's approval.
If B terminates my employment, and my transfer to C is still Pending, what will happen in such a case ?
You can start working for Employer C as and when you have the receipt notice for C's transfer. Just make sure, you file for transfer before termination. You have all the documents that is required for H1 transfer, dont worry about it.
Applying for premium processing with Company C seems to be best option. However sometimes premium processing takes more than 15 days to get a result. Since Company B has indicated that they will terminate my employment by the end of this month (less than 15 days from now), I may not have the option of resigning from Company B, before getting Company C's approval.
If B terminates my employment, and my transfer to C is still Pending, what will happen in such a case ?
You can start working for Employer C as and when you have the receipt notice for C's transfer. Just make sure, you file for transfer before termination. You have all the documents that is required for H1 transfer, dont worry about it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment