sriswam
06-29 12:57 PM
Is there any quota on filing the I 140s? My friend requested his employer for upgrading his 140 and he says that the attorney mentioned that the quota for I 140 is already full. I don't think it is right. Any inromation please.
There is no quota. The employer can file for I-907 diectly without invoving the lawyer. The attorneys are not likely to help you now since they are swamped. I'd say ask the employer to file today. Else wait a month!
There is no quota. The employer can file for I-907 diectly without invoving the lawyer. The attorneys are not likely to help you now since they are swamped. I'd say ask the employer to file today. Else wait a month!
perm2gc
01-08 04:34 PM
How did you guys manage to get H1's so recently from H4?
Is there a way that H4 are exempt from the H1 quota?
The H4 to H1 applied in 2006 quota is very slow.Some cases are getting approval even in jan(one of my friends wife got approval last week).
No rule yet to exempt H4 from H1 quota.
Is there a way that H4 are exempt from the H1 quota?
The H4 to H1 applied in 2006 quota is very slow.Some cases are getting approval even in jan(one of my friends wife got approval last week).
No rule yet to exempt H4 from H1 quota.
gg_ny
08-21 09:20 AM
Is there a chance to attach SKIL provisions towards higher degree GC retrogressed applicants to this appropriation efforts?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
reddy_73
10-02 02:59 PM
even i have the same thing, mine was received by NSC and receipt mailed by NSC.
section says as UNKNOWN, called USCIS and she does not know any thing about it
section says as UNKNOWN, called USCIS and she does not know any thing about it
more...
pnara2
01-24 10:04 AM
Guys, sorry I do not understand the numbers very well. Assuming the same amount of spillover numbers for 2011, what will be the status of EB2 by December-2011??
Thanks,
Prasad.
Thanks,
Prasad.
gc_lover
06-20 12:24 PM
Hi gc_lover,
Did u get this information from your attorney? My attorney has a different view and tells me we cannot proceed without the actual papers of certification from PBEC.
Also can u check for me what is required if we do not have the certification papers from DOL(like a print out of CERTIFIED status from DOL website) to file
for 140/485. I will try to pursue with my attorney if I get this info.
Thanks.
Case Details
TR PBEC Priority Date : 03/2003 Stauts : CERTIFIED since last week
Waiting for Certification docs. to file 140/485.
Hello,
I got this from immigration-law.com website
=======================================
06/05/2007: I-140 Petitions Ineligible for Premium Processing
Under the regulation, the USCIS is authorized to suspend certain types of I-140 petitions for the premium processing on its website notice. As of now, the following I-140 petitions are not eligible for the premium processing:
1. A second filing of a Form I-140 petition while an initial Form I-140 remains pending;
2. Labor Certification substitution requests; and
3. Duplicate Labor Certification requests (i.e., cases filed without an original labor certification from the Department of labor).
It appears that the third category includes any I-140 petitions filed without the original labor certification regardless of whether they should obtain a duplicate labor certification from the DOL. It also appears that they refuse to process on the premium processing basis the I-140 petitions to request the priority date transfer unless the original labor certification application is filed with the request.
===============================================
You can apply for 140/485 but you cannot go for premium processing. I also know a case who has done this. You do not need any extra documents to file without LC. My lawyer had confirmed this thing. However, I am planning to send print out of website and email I have from BEC.
Yes, you can file without actual LC papers, so don't wait!
Did u get this information from your attorney? My attorney has a different view and tells me we cannot proceed without the actual papers of certification from PBEC.
Also can u check for me what is required if we do not have the certification papers from DOL(like a print out of CERTIFIED status from DOL website) to file
for 140/485. I will try to pursue with my attorney if I get this info.
Thanks.
Case Details
TR PBEC Priority Date : 03/2003 Stauts : CERTIFIED since last week
Waiting for Certification docs. to file 140/485.
Hello,
I got this from immigration-law.com website
=======================================
06/05/2007: I-140 Petitions Ineligible for Premium Processing
Under the regulation, the USCIS is authorized to suspend certain types of I-140 petitions for the premium processing on its website notice. As of now, the following I-140 petitions are not eligible for the premium processing:
1. A second filing of a Form I-140 petition while an initial Form I-140 remains pending;
2. Labor Certification substitution requests; and
3. Duplicate Labor Certification requests (i.e., cases filed without an original labor certification from the Department of labor).
It appears that the third category includes any I-140 petitions filed without the original labor certification regardless of whether they should obtain a duplicate labor certification from the DOL. It also appears that they refuse to process on the premium processing basis the I-140 petitions to request the priority date transfer unless the original labor certification application is filed with the request.
===============================================
You can apply for 140/485 but you cannot go for premium processing. I also know a case who has done this. You do not need any extra documents to file without LC. My lawyer had confirmed this thing. However, I am planning to send print out of website and email I have from BEC.
Yes, you can file without actual LC papers, so don't wait!
more...
travellertvr
03-22 01:38 PM
I entered in the US on November 30, 2009 with H1-B visa valid till September 19, 2011, but passport expiration date was January 3, 2010. Customs and Border Protection officer put January 3, 2010 expiration date on my I-94. On December 11, 2009 I received new passport valid till December 11, 2014, but I-94 date has never been changed.
I�ve applied for Green Card in 2010, labor certification has been approved on July 26, 2010, I-140 filed on November 16, 2010. My priority date is June 7, 2010.
The lawyer I�m working with on my Green Card noticed that I was out of status in June, 2010. She suggested extension of H-1B visa. This was done, and my new H-1B dates are 10/18/2010 till 01/03/2013.
According to my lawyer, new H-1B returned me back in status and working legally in the US, but it didn�t solve the problem of being out of status more than 180 days. And if I leave US now, there will be 3 year ban to enter back.
Please advise if that�s correct and if there is any solution to this problem? If I leave US now, will I be banned 3 years to enter, even though my H1-B and I-94 now have all valid dates?
I�ve applied for Green Card in 2010, labor certification has been approved on July 26, 2010, I-140 filed on November 16, 2010. My priority date is June 7, 2010.
The lawyer I�m working with on my Green Card noticed that I was out of status in June, 2010. She suggested extension of H-1B visa. This was done, and my new H-1B dates are 10/18/2010 till 01/03/2013.
According to my lawyer, new H-1B returned me back in status and working legally in the US, but it didn�t solve the problem of being out of status more than 180 days. And if I leave US now, there will be 3 year ban to enter back.
Please advise if that�s correct and if there is any solution to this problem? If I leave US now, will I be banned 3 years to enter, even though my H1-B and I-94 now have all valid dates?
gclongwaytogo
10-24 09:47 AM
:o:)
more...
md2003
11-19 10:53 AM
Does it required 6 months pay stub (till Dec 29th -- for July 2nd files) or after 180 days we can move to any company whether you have last month pay stub or not. Generally most of the companies hold 15 days amount.
wleebrown
November 14th, 2007, 07:26 AM
Keith,
My sensors always seem to be dust magnets ... probably because I shoot with mostly primes and switch lenses a lot outdoors and in places that the lens just probably shouldn't be off the camera.
The site Mats recommends looks like it might have some good instructions, but the best advice I've been given was buy a Rocket blower (it's just a big bulb type blower that's shaped like a rocket for about $20). Most of the time 3 or 4 blasts of air with the rocket blower does the trick. (Never use canned air by the way.) And be careful how far you insert the end of the blower into your camera once the mirror is locked.
Shortly after buying a new 30D I got a little overzealous and smeared the end of the blower across the sensor. After pulling my heart back out of my feet, because I was certain I'd destroyed my new camera, and reading several sites like the one above, I violated all the rules and used standard cotton swabs my wife had in the bathroom (because it was the weekend and I live in the country where camera stores and medical supply shops are not close by or open) and I was able to easily clean the smear I had created across the sensor. The only problem I've had since was more dust.
It's kind of scary the first time, but in reality it is not brain surgery. If you use due care and the right kinds of material, you should have no problem removing the dust yourself. At $75 a cleaning, if I took my camera in every time I had a little dust I would have to give quit shooting.
Blessings,
Lee
My sensors always seem to be dust magnets ... probably because I shoot with mostly primes and switch lenses a lot outdoors and in places that the lens just probably shouldn't be off the camera.
The site Mats recommends looks like it might have some good instructions, but the best advice I've been given was buy a Rocket blower (it's just a big bulb type blower that's shaped like a rocket for about $20). Most of the time 3 or 4 blasts of air with the rocket blower does the trick. (Never use canned air by the way.) And be careful how far you insert the end of the blower into your camera once the mirror is locked.
Shortly after buying a new 30D I got a little overzealous and smeared the end of the blower across the sensor. After pulling my heart back out of my feet, because I was certain I'd destroyed my new camera, and reading several sites like the one above, I violated all the rules and used standard cotton swabs my wife had in the bathroom (because it was the weekend and I live in the country where camera stores and medical supply shops are not close by or open) and I was able to easily clean the smear I had created across the sensor. The only problem I've had since was more dust.
It's kind of scary the first time, but in reality it is not brain surgery. If you use due care and the right kinds of material, you should have no problem removing the dust yourself. At $75 a cleaning, if I took my camera in every time I had a little dust I would have to give quit shooting.
Blessings,
Lee
more...
nandakumar
01-18 12:59 PM
Bump
walking_dude
11-25 12:16 PM
It may be the reason March was selected for the DC Rally, despite the cold weather so members have complained about. ( Note : I did not select the date).
If CIR is coming up in Spring, we need to make our case - by showing good numbers -by the end of winter ; freezing or not. If we don't do that our issue is very highly to get lost in the Border security, employer verification and Legalization/Amnesty. If we finish the public show of strength - DC Rally and the Lobby Day in March, we can be ready to send Web-faxes, make phone calls etc. in Spring to push for our bills.
During our lobby day and DC Rally efforts, we should get lawmakers to understand our issues and number of people impacted (0.5 million at the least). Once majority of the lawmakers understand that we exist in large numbers, and are facing these problems, they will be more sympathetic when we make those last minute phone calls and faxes.
If we don't do the DC Rally and Lobby day successfully, chances are lower that they may not be be sympathetic to us without understanding the issue and the large number of people impacted.
The clock has already started ticking. We have to act fast. If we do nothing, we will miss the boat once again. Will you help IV put Recapture and Visa increase on the upcoming CIR? If we don't, we all have wait several more years for the relief.
If CIR is coming up in Spring, we need to make our case - by showing good numbers -by the end of winter ; freezing or not. If we don't do that our issue is very highly to get lost in the Border security, employer verification and Legalization/Amnesty. If we finish the public show of strength - DC Rally and the Lobby Day in March, we can be ready to send Web-faxes, make phone calls etc. in Spring to push for our bills.
During our lobby day and DC Rally efforts, we should get lawmakers to understand our issues and number of people impacted (0.5 million at the least). Once majority of the lawmakers understand that we exist in large numbers, and are facing these problems, they will be more sympathetic when we make those last minute phone calls and faxes.
If we don't do the DC Rally and Lobby day successfully, chances are lower that they may not be be sympathetic to us without understanding the issue and the large number of people impacted.
The clock has already started ticking. We have to act fast. If we do nothing, we will miss the boat once again. Will you help IV put Recapture and Visa increase on the upcoming CIR? If we don't, we all have wait several more years for the relief.
more...
sujitp@gmail.com
10-05 03:44 PM
Please delete this post
GCEB2
09-20 09:01 PM
Hi... Can any one tell me which are the afforable places in California to buy home. It can be town home or single family homes, Bet 300k to 400k.
more...
NeedMiracles
06-03 10:10 AM
May be I am not understanding the question right...I think the question was - what are the STEM disciplines? I know the website lists a bunch of occupations that require one of the STEM degrees. So to look at what are the STEM degrees, I chose Browse By STEM Degree and in that Scroll menu are all the majors - starts with Chemistry, Computer Science, Engineering....
kumar1
07-23 06:04 PM
With my limited knowledge on this topic -- Unemployment is not considered a social burden. It is funded by all employers. At no time, govt funds this pool with tax payer's money so I would not call it a social burden. Personally, if unemployment office is ready to give me a check, I would collect it !
more...
Munna Bhai
02-27 07:14 AM
I have received my GC on January 28th. My company filled the following with USCIS:
I140 was filled on Nov. 21 2007 and Approved on Jan 24th 2008
I485 was filled on Nov. 21 2007 and Approved on Jan 20th 2008
Now... some people say to me to wait 180 days to quit my current job (which is paying me half of what I should be earning as a GC holder), some people say it is okay to leave at anytime....
So, I don't know what to do, I pretend to become a citzen in 5 years also, and not sure if this will count bad towards that.
I have some reasons to leave: sallary is low (they will not negociate more), wife is pregnant and I am getting a mortgage.
Please advice.
See with lot of difficulty you got GC. And with GC you can work part-time and even take another job. Why you want to take a chance. Yes, you must work for the employer for 180 days. Just stick for another 6 months and the game is over.
Enjoy the life.
I140 was filled on Nov. 21 2007 and Approved on Jan 24th 2008
I485 was filled on Nov. 21 2007 and Approved on Jan 20th 2008
Now... some people say to me to wait 180 days to quit my current job (which is paying me half of what I should be earning as a GC holder), some people say it is okay to leave at anytime....
So, I don't know what to do, I pretend to become a citzen in 5 years also, and not sure if this will count bad towards that.
I have some reasons to leave: sallary is low (they will not negociate more), wife is pregnant and I am getting a mortgage.
Please advice.
See with lot of difficulty you got GC. And with GC you can work part-time and even take another job. Why you want to take a chance. Yes, you must work for the employer for 180 days. Just stick for another 6 months and the game is over.
Enjoy the life.
mrajatish
05-25 11:08 PM
My personal thanks to QG&A - but the battle is still not over, this is just the beginning. We need QG&A more than ever.
immigrationvoice1
11-29 04:55 PM
I got my H4 stamped first and then applied for H1 while in India. Travelled to US on H4. This is the reason why I cannot work in US without stamping.
I am not too sure if USCIS would ask questions when I apply for h1B again in future through another company, about my not using my previous H1 aprooval for working in US.
The line in bold above is NOT TRUE. You can work in the USA with the approved H1B even if it is not stamped and even if you arrived using H4. All you need is a SSN along with the approved H1B to start working.
I am not too sure if USCIS would ask questions when I apply for h1B again in future through another company, about my not using my previous H1 aprooval for working in US.
The line in bold above is NOT TRUE. You can work in the USA with the approved H1B even if it is not stamped and even if you arrived using H4. All you need is a SSN along with the approved H1B to start working.
senthil
01-17 11:30 AM
i would recommend --
its worth going to a tax filing rep ( HR block or any local re closer to you ) who'll get your job done easy. bec this involves not only adding your spouse to your tax records for the first time to get rebates etc. they will also help fill required forms / pappers to apply a new ITIN for your spouse, which is supposed to go to a diff address for requesting ITIN and once after an ITIN is assigned, it gets forwarded to the right place where it should be filed etc.
Having copies of all forms this time, may be it will be easier for you next time to do it yourself. my 2 c. good luck
its worth going to a tax filing rep ( HR block or any local re closer to you ) who'll get your job done easy. bec this involves not only adding your spouse to your tax records for the first time to get rebates etc. they will also help fill required forms / pappers to apply a new ITIN for your spouse, which is supposed to go to a diff address for requesting ITIN and once after an ITIN is assigned, it gets forwarded to the right place where it should be filed etc.
Having copies of all forms this time, may be it will be easier for you next time to do it yourself. my 2 c. good luck
lazycis
10-05 09:03 PM
Your H1-B does not matter. What matters is LC for your I-140. It sounds like you want to use AC21 portability. EAD allows to work for any employer(s), but you have to make sure your I-140/I-485 is intact.
No comments:
Post a Comment