crazyghoda
02-23 06:36 PM
Its really bad out there.... take it from someone who was just laid off. It took me around 2 months to get a new job and that too at a lower salary and in a neighboring city where I am now faced with a 2 hour commute each way. So no, its definitely not as rosy as you think.
That being said, if you are good at what you do you will find a job. It may take a while but if you are truly good then you will be ok. I completely understand the need to maintain salary levels to ensure career progression. That was the main reason I left my original GC sponsoring employer who while being great with everything else, just wasnt a good enough paymaster and that led folks to believe I wasnt really that good when I would mention the work I was doing. In hindsight, I wouldnt have had to scramble like this if I had stuck it out at my old place. But c'est la vie.
As some folks mentioned, try and get a feel of the market. Attend as many face to face interviews as you can and refine yourself as you go along. And dont accept anything in haste. A good thing is that a lot of recruiters told me that when the market gets better all the folks who were forced to take paycuts will easily be able to justify the lower salaries they were forced into accepting at that time. So, even if you do have to take a paycut, it wont hurt you for long as long as you change jobs when the market gets better.
Good luck!
That being said, if you are good at what you do you will find a job. It may take a while but if you are truly good then you will be ok. I completely understand the need to maintain salary levels to ensure career progression. That was the main reason I left my original GC sponsoring employer who while being great with everything else, just wasnt a good enough paymaster and that led folks to believe I wasnt really that good when I would mention the work I was doing. In hindsight, I wouldnt have had to scramble like this if I had stuck it out at my old place. But c'est la vie.
As some folks mentioned, try and get a feel of the market. Attend as many face to face interviews as you can and refine yourself as you go along. And dont accept anything in haste. A good thing is that a lot of recruiters told me that when the market gets better all the folks who were forced to take paycuts will easily be able to justify the lower salaries they were forced into accepting at that time. So, even if you do have to take a paycut, it wont hurt you for long as long as you change jobs when the market gets better.
Good luck!
wallpaper Facebook Emoticons
franklin
07-11 07:31 PM
Thanks everyone for your offers to help. The more volunteers the better, since it will decrease the number of phone calls for each person to make.
Please remember to send contact info (email address) to either gsc999 or myself
Please remember to send contact info (email address) to either gsc999 or myself
nashorn
12-18 03:25 PM
Have you got their decision on your 140? They wouldn't make dicision on your 485 untill they have decision on your 140. If your 140 got denied, your 485 would be denied.
2011 Facebook emoticons
x1050us
10-01 02:16 AM
This is the new thread to mention your rejection reasons.
Please mention following:
Rejection date: 09/21/07
Reason: Other reasons (Not mentioned in data base system - More info with rejection letter and package)
Package received date: Waiting
My case was rejected with incorrect fee as reason. But my lawyer claims that the rejection packet did not have the original checks. So, they don't know whose fault it is. Any one with similar issue ?
Please mention following:
Rejection date: 09/21/07
Reason: Other reasons (Not mentioned in data base system - More info with rejection letter and package)
Package received date: Waiting
My case was rejected with incorrect fee as reason. But my lawyer claims that the rejection packet did not have the original checks. So, they don't know whose fault it is. Any one with similar issue ?
more...
mnq1979
05-21 03:02 PM
I know answer for his RFE and i don't know answer for my RFE? Is that a problem?
Well i dont think thats true that it is must that i have to send the AC21. Like i can always get the employment letter from my employer who sponsered me for my green card. All i was asking was that IF I DO GET THE EVL RFE (I HOPE NOT) then in that instance what i am suppose to do? Get a letter from my current employer or the employer who sponsored me for green card?
Well i dont think thats true that it is must that i have to send the AC21. Like i can always get the employment letter from my employer who sponsered me for my green card. All i was asking was that IF I DO GET THE EVL RFE (I HOPE NOT) then in that instance what i am suppose to do? Get a letter from my current employer or the employer who sponsored me for green card?
thamizhan
07-18 10:49 AM
http://newspostindia.com/report-7892
more...
sb724
08-16 10:37 PM
Hi,
Anybody recently submitted evidences to RFE to NSC on 485?
Its been a week I have submitted, still now no updates on my case. Is it normal?
Please advise.
Thanks
sk
Anybody recently submitted evidences to RFE to NSC on 485?
Its been a week I have submitted, still now no updates on my case. Is it normal?
Please advise.
Thanks
sk
2010 Facebook emoticons are a great
cooldude0807
06-02 09:04 AM
I have a lawyer who is representing me..so he got the RFE & he fowarded it to me. In your case i would just call USCIS and check to see if you will recieve RFE's since you don't have a lawyer representing you.
more...
sanjay
07-31 04:59 PM
Neither me nor my wife had US degree. Both went to Canada for stamping. myself in Ottawa and my wife in Toronto with in a gap of five months and had no problems what so ever. 7 of my friends also went to Canada for stamping but no issues with them also.
I think Canada is more safer than going India.
I think Canada is more safer than going India.
hair Facebook Emoticons
yabadaba
08-14 01:02 PM
Sorry but I didn't get what your "Yes" pointed to.
is OP wrong or right in his assumption?
Personally, I don't think it matters whether an applicant is direct employee or works for a consulting company. If it was indeed true, then people would start jumping on the direct client bandwagons :D
Thanks,
Nik
the op modified his post.. his post ended with the question "am i missing something here?" and i replied to that as yes you are.. as to what he/she is missing is anyone's guess. maybe some common sense?
how would uscis have the ability to decode between a direct hire and a non direct hire application?
abc corporation is abc corporation. what OP was implying was that employees at companies with well established brand names would get it faster. but there are thousands of legitimate companies in various fields other than software that have 0 brand recognition outside their industry.
is OP wrong or right in his assumption?
Personally, I don't think it matters whether an applicant is direct employee or works for a consulting company. If it was indeed true, then people would start jumping on the direct client bandwagons :D
Thanks,
Nik
the op modified his post.. his post ended with the question "am i missing something here?" and i replied to that as yes you are.. as to what he/she is missing is anyone's guess. maybe some common sense?
how would uscis have the ability to decode between a direct hire and a non direct hire application?
abc corporation is abc corporation. what OP was implying was that employees at companies with well established brand names would get it faster. but there are thousands of legitimate companies in various fields other than software that have 0 brand recognition outside their industry.
more...
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
hot of Facebook Emoticons.
desidude
07-22 12:12 AM
sundarpn,
I had the same questions and clarified with my attorney.
1. Yes, you can change your job after 180 days, as you get the portability. Your 485 will remain good standing.
2. Yes, you can extend.
3. Doesn't matter who your new employer is, you can still sponser your wife when dates are current in the future, provided your wife should be living in US then.
Nave_Kum,
I don't understand your post. can you explain?
I too want to change jobs after 6 months of filing 485 and want to continue on H1 despite having EAD so that I can get my future spouse on H4. (then add/file her 485 when dates become current)
If I change to a new employer after 6 months (on H1b transfer):
1. Will my 485 remain in good standing
2. Can I get 3 yr extension of H1b from the new employer(as I have I-140 copy).
3. Can I file my spouses 485 when the dates become current (despite working for a new employer on H1b.)
If u dont use ur EAD for the first 6 months, then u can join the new employer any time using ur H1B. But immediately after the date of EAD activation, u will need to stick with the corresponding employer for the next 6 mnths.[/QUOTE]
I had the same questions and clarified with my attorney.
1. Yes, you can change your job after 180 days, as you get the portability. Your 485 will remain good standing.
2. Yes, you can extend.
3. Doesn't matter who your new employer is, you can still sponser your wife when dates are current in the future, provided your wife should be living in US then.
Nave_Kum,
I don't understand your post. can you explain?
I too want to change jobs after 6 months of filing 485 and want to continue on H1 despite having EAD so that I can get my future spouse on H4. (then add/file her 485 when dates become current)
If I change to a new employer after 6 months (on H1b transfer):
1. Will my 485 remain in good standing
2. Can I get 3 yr extension of H1b from the new employer(as I have I-140 copy).
3. Can I file my spouses 485 when the dates become current (despite working for a new employer on H1b.)
If u dont use ur EAD for the first 6 months, then u can join the new employer any time using ur H1B. But immediately after the date of EAD activation, u will need to stick with the corresponding employer for the next 6 mnths.[/QUOTE]
more...
house Facebook Emoticons Smileys New
hebron
04-03 03:40 AM
I can apply for 3 years H1-B extension (8,9 and 10th year) based on my approved I-140. However, my Indian passport expires in August 2008. Does this have anything to do with H1-B extension? Will I geet 3 years extension?
Can I renew my passport now before applying for my H1-B extn? Can I get my passport renewed before 6 months of expiry?
Kindly help.
Thanks!
Can I renew my passport now before applying for my H1-B extn? Can I get my passport renewed before 6 months of expiry?
Kindly help.
Thanks!
tattoo facebook emoticons list for
iam_amit
02-20 05:47 PM
Members,
I need some help to act in right direction.
In Oct -2008 my wife got H1B. She was on H4 before that. The employer is still searching client for her to start work. She has got no pay, as practically she never started work. She still have valid-H4 VISa till sept-2009.
1) What is her current status H1B or H4?
2) how long can she wait to search job, assuming if she does not get job in next 2-3 months, how long will be H1B status Valid.
3) If she travels to india, will she has to get H1B stamped or she can re-enter on H4.
4) What are the options to get her back on H4. I have to file my extension in sept-2009.
Feedbacks, as highly appreciated.
~cheers
I need some help to act in right direction.
In Oct -2008 my wife got H1B. She was on H4 before that. The employer is still searching client for her to start work. She has got no pay, as practically she never started work. She still have valid-H4 VISa till sept-2009.
1) What is her current status H1B or H4?
2) how long can she wait to search job, assuming if she does not get job in next 2-3 months, how long will be H1B status Valid.
3) If she travels to india, will she has to get H1B stamped or she can re-enter on H4.
4) What are the options to get her back on H4. I have to file my extension in sept-2009.
Feedbacks, as highly appreciated.
~cheers
more...
pictures use Facebook Emoticons
gcisadawg
04-13 10:22 AM
I have recently switched the job using AC21. I have to move my 401K from my old previous company but here is the issue: in my new company I will not be eligible for the 401 till I complete 6 months with the new company.
If thinking of moving it to IRA account, please let me know what is the procedure involved?
I will really appreciate if some can suggest me what are my other options.
Thanks,
You have multiple options.
1> Just keep the money with your old company. This is possible if the balance is above 5K.
You can shift as soon as you set up a new 401K plan with your new company. Check with your current HR if they allow this. In my company, they do allow this.
2> Shift the money to a new/exsisting IRA.
Either case, first open the account and ask your current 401K custodian to write a cheque to new 401K/IRA custodian. If they write a cheque directly to you, they may withhold tax.
If you don't deposit within specific time period then you would incur tax and 10% penalty.
-GCisaDawg
If thinking of moving it to IRA account, please let me know what is the procedure involved?
I will really appreciate if some can suggest me what are my other options.
Thanks,
You have multiple options.
1> Just keep the money with your old company. This is possible if the balance is above 5K.
You can shift as soon as you set up a new 401K plan with your new company. Check with your current HR if they allow this. In my company, they do allow this.
2> Shift the money to a new/exsisting IRA.
Either case, first open the account and ask your current 401K custodian to write a cheque to new 401K/IRA custodian. If they write a cheque directly to you, they may withhold tax.
If you don't deposit within specific time period then you would incur tax and 10% penalty.
-GCisaDawg
dresses Emoticon su Facebook
gapala
07-10 03:15 PM
Hi Dhundhun,
Thanks for your response.
to your question:
.. It should be OK to take job with Y (assuming that you have I-797 from Y with I-94) and then getting Visa stamped when new passport arrives.
VenuK: I wish its that simple... On I-797 from Y it doesn't have I-94 number on it anywhere. since its through consular processing.
In order to work with Y, i have to get stamped first then only pay stubbs are generated. This was the understanding, when owner of Y ,company Y Attorney and myself were in the conference call discussion.
advices are always appreciated
Pls let me know...
With Thanks,
Venu
What is the result of appeal?
Based on the information provided on above post , I believe X is paying you in view of pending appeal.
Note that there is a risk in going to other countries for stamping due to PIMS related delay. You can search for thread from people who were stuck in Canada for few months but they were Canada landers and stay in canada wasn't an issue for them.
Its safe to go to your home country and get it stamped there. You are atleast safe to stay as long as PIMS takes to validate.
Thanks for your response.
to your question:
.. It should be OK to take job with Y (assuming that you have I-797 from Y with I-94) and then getting Visa stamped when new passport arrives.
VenuK: I wish its that simple... On I-797 from Y it doesn't have I-94 number on it anywhere. since its through consular processing.
In order to work with Y, i have to get stamped first then only pay stubbs are generated. This was the understanding, when owner of Y ,company Y Attorney and myself were in the conference call discussion.
advices are always appreciated
Pls let me know...
With Thanks,
Venu
What is the result of appeal?
Based on the information provided on above post , I believe X is paying you in view of pending appeal.
Note that there is a risk in going to other countries for stamping due to PIMS related delay. You can search for thread from people who were stuck in Canada for few months but they were Canada landers and stay in canada wasn't an issue for them.
Its safe to go to your home country and get it stamped there. You are atleast safe to stay as long as PIMS takes to validate.
more...
makeup Facebook+emoticons
Sreenuuk
11-18 04:19 PM
You can not do anything. You jsut need to call SSN office and find out the status, apart from that you can not do anything.
girlfriend to use facebook smileys,
sapota
10-15 02:19 PM
I am actually amazingly surprised by the phone customer service that USCIS is offering now (I remember having to dial INS phone customer numbers only to get constant engaged tones). Talking to a customer service rep will give you up to date status of your case (online status is not most updated).
hairstyles facebook smileys and symbols.
lazycis
10-29 03:52 PM
Has anybody changed from Attorney to No Attorney? G-28 form has instructions on how to change an attorney, but there is nothing to cancel it altogether.
I've done it. Well, basically my attorney sent a notice to the USCIS, but I think you can do it too by sending a simple letter to the Service Center. There is no form for that as far as I know.
I've done it. Well, basically my attorney sent a notice to the USCIS, but I think you can do it too by sending a simple letter to the Service Center. There is no form for that as far as I know.
LongJourny
01-26 02:46 PM
My attourney says that when they approved my visa for the first time on H1b, they forgave me and that I should be fine. He recommended me to make sure that I report correctly. As per the rule goes I was suppose to be working either one of the company. There is no exception like 5 days or 7 days. It seems they are not so hard for small gaps as long as you filed for H1B transfer. Hope this helps.
sreeanne
02-08 05:56 PM
calboy78, thanks for your reply. i will go for PIO card and update his information in nearest police station after 180 days.
No comments:
Post a Comment