gc_chahiye
12-21 12:54 AM
He did not pay you. Thats all. don't worry about it. Even I know people who got GC's even with a real degree I mean completed degree even from INdia. Its all LUCK.
unfortunately even if the employer screwed up, if an employee in H1-B does not get paid, he is out of status and pays the consequences. Does not matter if employer stopped paying suddenly or whatever else...
the OPs travel outside US and back after this out-of-status is what has 'saved' him in this case, since the out-of-status clock got reset with that re-entry. Also, 180 days of out-of-status past your last re-entry is forgiven. This might still come up in an interview, but cannot be grounds for denial from what I know.
unfortunately even if the employer screwed up, if an employee in H1-B does not get paid, he is out of status and pays the consequences. Does not matter if employer stopped paying suddenly or whatever else...
the OPs travel outside US and back after this out-of-status is what has 'saved' him in this case, since the out-of-status clock got reset with that re-entry. Also, 180 days of out-of-status past your last re-entry is forgiven. This might still come up in an interview, but cannot be grounds for denial from what I know.
wallpaper Hugh Hefner engaged to
rockstart
07-13 05:02 AM
I am current as well.
McLuvin
03-12 01:55 PM
finally the bulletin has been posted in the DOS website...
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
2011 Hugh Hefner Engaged to Playboy
snathan
03-10 03:44 PM
I disagree that this is not the right time for visa recapturing. It will be never be the right time.
Do you think the efforts like sending 1000 pizzas etc would not draw negative publicity. Think again.
What we are asking is to recapture the unused visa numbers. In this climate of high unemployment rate, I do not think there is any other legislation that would draw less negative publicity.
It is to be strongly publicized and understood that these recapturing unused visa numbers are only going to help the non-immigrants who are already employed and who are on the path to seek permanent resident status. This is NOT creating new H1B visas NOR giving away the jobs to the non-immigrants.
I never supported the Idea of sending pizza, Burger or Briyani to anyone. If you are not aware, last year there was a bill introduced by congresswoman Loe. There was a huge outcry and number USA used that very effectively and that bill never took off.
This is the best option but this is not the right time when the un employment rate is 8.1 percent. Read the other thread about removing country cap issue. The core is not supporting that also because of the current market and economy situation.
Do you think the efforts like sending 1000 pizzas etc would not draw negative publicity. Think again.
What we are asking is to recapture the unused visa numbers. In this climate of high unemployment rate, I do not think there is any other legislation that would draw less negative publicity.
It is to be strongly publicized and understood that these recapturing unused visa numbers are only going to help the non-immigrants who are already employed and who are on the path to seek permanent resident status. This is NOT creating new H1B visas NOR giving away the jobs to the non-immigrants.
I never supported the Idea of sending pizza, Burger or Briyani to anyone. If you are not aware, last year there was a bill introduced by congresswoman Loe. There was a huge outcry and number USA used that very effectively and that bill never took off.
This is the best option but this is not the right time when the un employment rate is 8.1 percent. Read the other thread about removing country cap issue. The core is not supporting that also because of the current market and economy situation.
more...
reddymjm
09-10 12:58 PM
My PD is March 2010 EB2 so i'm not even in this race yet but help me in understanding one thing.
Was EB3 current in July 2007? If yes, I'm assuming atleast 95% EB3 folks have EAD and their spouse can work. The really big problem in post 2007 EB3.
Since dates were current in July 2007, Eb2 and Eb3 can atleast enjoy EAD/spouse working benefits. Why do ppl complain when they have EAD etc whose PD is before 2007.
Yes EB3 was in Jun 2003 in Jun 2007 bulliten and July 2007 all were Current. EB3 was in 2001 or so till May 2007 Bulliten. Most of them waited few years to file 485.
Was EB3 current in July 2007? If yes, I'm assuming atleast 95% EB3 folks have EAD and their spouse can work. The really big problem in post 2007 EB3.
Since dates were current in July 2007, Eb2 and Eb3 can atleast enjoy EAD/spouse working benefits. Why do ppl complain when they have EAD etc whose PD is before 2007.
Yes EB3 was in Jun 2003 in Jun 2007 bulliten and July 2007 all were Current. EB3 was in 2001 or so till May 2007 Bulliten. Most of them waited few years to file 485.
priderock
01-22 05:31 PM
I think thigns break even at some point. It is so frustrating that it becomes no longer attractive to pursue GC (If we have not already reached that point).
You got to be open to change to survive, be it a person or a country. No point in predicting death before GC or any such extreme cases. It will definetely take as long as it needs. Its basic capitalism at best , supply and demand. You can't beat that.
Nothing wrong in trying to change the course though.
You got to be open to change to survive, be it a person or a country. No point in predicting death before GC or any such extreme cases. It will definetely take as long as it needs. Its basic capitalism at best , supply and demand. You can't beat that.
Nothing wrong in trying to change the course though.
more...
ramus
07-02 05:16 PM
Who is first?
2010 HUGH HEFNER ENGAGED TO 23 YEAR
gccovet
03-09 12:26 PM
No movement for EB2-I just 15 days forward for EB3-I
This sux
GCCOvet
This sux
GCCOvet
more...
ek_bechara
10-15 03:25 PM
I propose Non Co-operation Movement for another flower campaign. I know art imitates life and life imitates art etc. But imitates again and again irritates.
Looks like you have a plan here. Yep.. lets go ahead and irritate the hell out of USCIS and every agency out there.
I'm out of here guys
All the best..
Looks like you have a plan here. Yep.. lets go ahead and irritate the hell out of USCIS and every agency out there.
I'm out of here guys
All the best..
hair hefner wedding off terms of
pointlesswait
07-12 05:05 PM
Does anyone have the list of latest set documents required to file for 485.... can you plzzzz email/post it here... thanks
can it be done without the help of an attorney...????
can it be done without the help of an attorney...????
more...
amitga
03-11 11:36 PM
Real April fool
hot hugh hefner engaged. Hef
mirage
02-06 09:40 AM
You got my point, sir!!!
Though I am posting very late, I fully agree with the intent of the thread starter. If there is anything that we can convince the "balanced" law makers, it is the discrimination based on country based quota.
A person with certain skill set brings same and equal benefits to this country. S/He is hired because the economy of this country needs him/her. Then why issue green card to one because s/he was born in XYZ country and why ask another to wait almost endlessly because s/he was born in ABC country. This is absurd, unjust, unfair and discriminatory, particularly considering the values that United States respects, believes in and follows.
We can sell only this one point to law makers. Selling an idea on how much benefits we bring to this country, and if we can buy homes with 20% down payment, is like waking up a person who is pretending to be asleep. They have decided not to buy that argument no matter what. And then there is Dick Durbyn, Grassley, Jeff Sessions, Steve King and many like them...............
Though I am posting very late, I fully agree with the intent of the thread starter. If there is anything that we can convince the "balanced" law makers, it is the discrimination based on country based quota.
A person with certain skill set brings same and equal benefits to this country. S/He is hired because the economy of this country needs him/her. Then why issue green card to one because s/he was born in XYZ country and why ask another to wait almost endlessly because s/he was born in ABC country. This is absurd, unjust, unfair and discriminatory, particularly considering the values that United States respects, believes in and follows.
We can sell only this one point to law makers. Selling an idea on how much benefits we bring to this country, and if we can buy homes with 20% down payment, is like waking up a person who is pretending to be asleep. They have decided not to buy that argument no matter what. And then there is Dick Durbyn, Grassley, Jeff Sessions, Steve King and many like them...............
more...
house Hugh Hefner is 84 and engaged
clif
03-07 09:23 AM
What if my employer is definitely going to revoke my approved I-140 upon my resignation (past 180 days)? Do I need to file "Notice of I-140 Portability"?
Also, in the above posts when people are saying that almost no support is needed from the new employer to keep 485 process going smoothly, is it safe to assume they are changing jobs using EAD and not doing H1B transfer?
One more question, my employer will revoke my I-140 and my H1B. How long can I be without a job after they do that? Are the above actions of my employer very likely to result in a RFE from USCIS? If so, what will USCIS ask for in RFE?
Thank for all the advise.
---------------------------------
Contributed $100.
Also, in the above posts when people are saying that almost no support is needed from the new employer to keep 485 process going smoothly, is it safe to assume they are changing jobs using EAD and not doing H1B transfer?
One more question, my employer will revoke my I-140 and my H1B. How long can I be without a job after they do that? Are the above actions of my employer very likely to result in a RFE from USCIS? If so, what will USCIS ask for in RFE?
Thank for all the advise.
---------------------------------
Contributed $100.
tattoo HUGH Hefner is getting married
nomi
12-11 03:58 PM
USCIS cannot do anything on the matter. INA is clear on the AOS conditions, one of which is "An immigrant visa is IMMEDIATELY available at time of filing for adjustment of status" (INA 245, 8 USC 1225)
INA should be changed which should be done through a legislative process, not through any rule making.
Thank xbohdukc. I think, this door is also close.
INA should be changed which should be done through a legislative process, not through any rule making.
Thank xbohdukc. I think, this door is also close.
more...
pictures Hugh Hefner Engaged
perm2gc
12-27 12:41 AM
One more
http://classifieds.sulekha.com/bay-area/immigration/everything-else/clad.aspx?cid=1528572&nma=sfo
http://classifieds.sulekha.com/bay-area/immigration/everything-else/clad.aspx?cid=1528572&nma=sfo
dresses Hugh Hefner Engaged: Kendra
mbartosik
09-19 03:52 AM
first - glad you liked my little skit / comedy show, Arman asked me to write a speech, I don't think that was quite what he had in mind when he asked me to speak :D
That was actually a toned down version of my skit :D I took out many of gags and would have loved to put more in.
I hope that a video will be posted, the crowd reaction was fantastic, at least that's what it sounded like from the stage. I had so many people coming up to me after. I've still not quite come down from it. It was fun to deliver too.
------
I like to idea of legalimmigrationvoice.org
legalimmigrationvoice.com points here, but I see that
legalimmigrationvoice.org has this
"If you are interested to have this website please contact us at registerflyaccount@yahoo.com"
I hope that was one of us that registered it (not a camper).
On the rally I saw lots of positive reactions, and just one negative reaction, and I think that he could not read or just assumed illegal, he called out "it will never happen". Even if we had signs that said "We are legal" some would still assume that we were undocumented because they would think that we were only claiming not to be criminals since crossing the boarder without presenting oneself for inspection is technically a civil offense I think. If we all wore suits the mistake would have been made less. The undocumented issue is so embedded in the public's minds.
Signs do need to be more brief.
The anonymity of a forum alias is not a good thing I think. Although the aliases are often cute. Some people called and asked if they had to give their names at registration. The boggy man will not get us! Big brother is not watching, remember he can only afford $2 for name check, so he cannot afford prospection glasses. Also it is handy to know people's names.
Yes we are mostly Indian and mostly Indian and Chinese have really bad delays. But it is unhelpful refer to Indians and Chinese joining forces, or this being an Indian org. etc. I put a lot of effort into trying to show my face in places to make the point that we are not just Indians and Chinese.
(Being a minority Anglo Saxon here I also put a lot of effort into emphasizing dropping country quotas.)
I wore a suit, 3 piece, yes my shirt was sweaty, but that was not caused by the rally it is was my crazy schedule of back to back meetings, and running around logistics organizing. Ironically I rarely wear a suit at work.
Maybe holding a few signs with our job titles would make the point. I think that would have helped reporters pick people out for interviews.
I think that Aman learnt that he needed at least 2 personal assistants on the day.
That was actually a toned down version of my skit :D I took out many of gags and would have loved to put more in.
I hope that a video will be posted, the crowd reaction was fantastic, at least that's what it sounded like from the stage. I had so many people coming up to me after. I've still not quite come down from it. It was fun to deliver too.
------
I like to idea of legalimmigrationvoice.org
legalimmigrationvoice.com points here, but I see that
legalimmigrationvoice.org has this
"If you are interested to have this website please contact us at registerflyaccount@yahoo.com"
I hope that was one of us that registered it (not a camper).
On the rally I saw lots of positive reactions, and just one negative reaction, and I think that he could not read or just assumed illegal, he called out "it will never happen". Even if we had signs that said "We are legal" some would still assume that we were undocumented because they would think that we were only claiming not to be criminals since crossing the boarder without presenting oneself for inspection is technically a civil offense I think. If we all wore suits the mistake would have been made less. The undocumented issue is so embedded in the public's minds.
Signs do need to be more brief.
The anonymity of a forum alias is not a good thing I think. Although the aliases are often cute. Some people called and asked if they had to give their names at registration. The boggy man will not get us! Big brother is not watching, remember he can only afford $2 for name check, so he cannot afford prospection glasses. Also it is handy to know people's names.
Yes we are mostly Indian and mostly Indian and Chinese have really bad delays. But it is unhelpful refer to Indians and Chinese joining forces, or this being an Indian org. etc. I put a lot of effort into trying to show my face in places to make the point that we are not just Indians and Chinese.
(Being a minority Anglo Saxon here I also put a lot of effort into emphasizing dropping country quotas.)
I wore a suit, 3 piece, yes my shirt was sweaty, but that was not caused by the rally it is was my crazy schedule of back to back meetings, and running around logistics organizing. Ironically I rarely wear a suit at work.
Maybe holding a few signs with our job titles would make the point. I think that would have helped reporters pick people out for interviews.
I think that Aman learnt that he needed at least 2 personal assistants on the day.
more...
makeup Hefner is now engaged to …
sweet_jungle
02-15 03:14 AM
I have heard that there are desi consultants who sponsor H-1 for people graduating with Masters in US, irrespective of which field they are in. Is this true? Sounds a bit fishy to me.
girlfriend Hugh Hefner engaged to Playboy
anurakt
01-16 07:11 AM
Ok . I too signed up for $100 monthly
20$ : 200 to go.
50$ : 100 to go
100$ : 18 to go.
let's keep the count going forward.
20$ : 200 to go.
50$ : 100 to go
100$ : 18 to go.
let's keep the count going forward.
hairstyles Hugh Hefner Wedding Lifetime
go_guy123
10-05 09:49 PM
Guys,
Just an update..I quit the company and joined small consulting firm. Got the project, labor approved, h1b approved (filed in premium) and prewailing wage determination will be started from next week.damn, i should ve done this 4 yrs back. these guys r fast. Never join as fulltime employee if you dont have green card
Congratulations...did you get the client letter to satisfy the new Employer-Employee relationship requirement. Was your H1B approved for just the duration of the project.
Just an update..I quit the company and joined small consulting firm. Got the project, labor approved, h1b approved (filed in premium) and prewailing wage determination will be started from next week.damn, i should ve done this 4 yrs back. these guys r fast. Never join as fulltime employee if you dont have green card
Congratulations...did you get the client letter to satisfy the new Employer-Employee relationship requirement. Was your H1B approved for just the duration of the project.
RNGC
09-19 04:36 PM
Million thanks to IV's superior organization. I am glad that my friends and I attended this event. It's just a little sad to see the local news channels reported the small protests by illegal immigrants in the Prince William County in MD but not our well-organized rally. Many people passing by us still think we are undocumented. I fully support the ideas from other members that we should highlight "LEGAL" everywhere.
I am suprised too!!! I just saw couple news agencies covering this rally....IV organisers did a great job in pulling this one....
but I am just curious to know why there was very little TV coverage for this event.....
I am suprised too!!! I just saw couple news agencies covering this rally....IV organisers did a great job in pulling this one....
but I am just curious to know why there was very little TV coverage for this event.....
logiclife
12-21 10:28 PM
You should've thought about this that whole year that you were goofin' off! Why are you bringing this up at this late juncture, anyway? Your PD is Dec, 2004. What makes you your petition will trigger an RFE for not working during 2001? You raise a very perplexing and contradicting query...
Hey, take it easy big guy/gal.
You are acting as if instead of being gainfully employed, he was sitting around and playing golf or something and that put him out of status.
Go easy on the judging part, coz you could be goofing off for a while too and if you are goofing off for a while, its not like after a week of goofing off, you are going to throw in the towel and take the next plane back home. In a country that has employed and harbored 11 million illegals, who dont even have a passport, those who are legally present and 'goofing off' for a while between 2 legitimate jobs that require excrutiating process of h1 sponsorship are the least of anyone's problems. In fact, the section 245(k) says that it is OK to goof off as long as goofing off is less than 180 days. And if the goofing off was before your last entry into usa, it doesnt even matter, regardless of whether it was less than 180 or more than 180 days. If US CONGRESS legitimizes, who are you to be the bigger judge.
IF the economy tanks, then a lot of us will be 'goofing off' in 2008 and 2009.
When someone is 'goofing off', that someone is concerned about paying the rent, managing to buy groceries and borrowing money off of credit cards to pay the bill, and during the 'goofing off' people dont sit by on a bench and think..."hmm...what will happen when I file my 485 and will this 'goofing off' hurt me at the time".
Hey, take it easy big guy/gal.
You are acting as if instead of being gainfully employed, he was sitting around and playing golf or something and that put him out of status.
Go easy on the judging part, coz you could be goofing off for a while too and if you are goofing off for a while, its not like after a week of goofing off, you are going to throw in the towel and take the next plane back home. In a country that has employed and harbored 11 million illegals, who dont even have a passport, those who are legally present and 'goofing off' for a while between 2 legitimate jobs that require excrutiating process of h1 sponsorship are the least of anyone's problems. In fact, the section 245(k) says that it is OK to goof off as long as goofing off is less than 180 days. And if the goofing off was before your last entry into usa, it doesnt even matter, regardless of whether it was less than 180 or more than 180 days. If US CONGRESS legitimizes, who are you to be the bigger judge.
IF the economy tanks, then a lot of us will be 'goofing off' in 2008 and 2009.
When someone is 'goofing off', that someone is concerned about paying the rent, managing to buy groceries and borrowing money off of credit cards to pay the bill, and during the 'goofing off' people dont sit by on a bench and think..."hmm...what will happen when I file my 485 and will this 'goofing off' hurt me at the time".
No comments:
Post a Comment