O'podu
07-13 01:37 PM
:D Just come over with suits, casuals, sneakers and boots in HAND.:confused:
wear the one which online rally member says before walk.
You can come with /without wearing anything. upto u.;)
LET THE RALLYYYYYYYYYYY BEGIN!!!
Here we come USCIS......!!!
wear the one which online rally member says before walk.
You can come with /without wearing anything. upto u.;)
LET THE RALLYYYYYYYYYYY BEGIN!!!
Here we come USCIS......!!!
MYGCBY2010
10-24 01:25 PM
Hi ,
I filed for i-485 ON July 23rd along with the EAD and AP. My EAD got approved and got a RFE on AP. I haven't received my Finger Print notice yet. Will RFE on AP affect the FP?..
Is it normal that I haven't FP notice after almost closed to a month after the checks have been encashed?..
Any inputs are highly appreciated.
Thanks..
I filed for i-485 ON July 23rd along with the EAD and AP. My EAD got approved and got a RFE on AP. I haven't received my Finger Print notice yet. Will RFE on AP affect the FP?..
Is it normal that I haven't FP notice after almost closed to a month after the checks have been encashed?..
Any inputs are highly appreciated.
Thanks..
suryamanikanth
04-17 01:22 PM
hello frnds,
could anyone please let me know what are the documents to be submitted for the CIC Once after i get the provisional nomination from AINP.Please help me out.Should i get the PCC from India or Federal background check is enough here in U.S.Please let me know.
sunny
could anyone please let me know what are the documents to be submitted for the CIC Once after i get the provisional nomination from AINP.Please help me out.Should i get the PCC from India or Federal background check is enough here in U.S.Please let me know.
sunny
mrdelhiite
08-07 10:57 AM
Though its not mentioned it is good file I-134. You are not eligible for I-864.
Yes u are right about I-864. Any employement based green card like ours ( EB2/EB3) should not file it. Here is the text from the I864 form -->
Employment-based preference immigrants in cases onlywhen a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident relativefiled the immigrant visa petition or such relative has asignificant ownership interest (five percent or more) in theentity that filed the petition.
Thanks a ton for your help guys. :-)
-M
Yes u are right about I-864. Any employement based green card like ours ( EB2/EB3) should not file it. Here is the text from the I864 form -->
Employment-based preference immigrants in cases onlywhen a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident relativefiled the immigrant visa petition or such relative has asignificant ownership interest (five percent or more) in theentity that filed the petition.
Thanks a ton for your help guys. :-)
-M
more...
Aah_GC
06-20 02:19 PM
The problem is AC21 is speculative rather than definitive. You can give it your own interpretation as USCIS has not come forward with a good distinction between same and similar.
When you are at the fork of the road, the path of least resistance to GC is a sensible one, that is when you don't have the fear of not getting your GC. It is ultimately up to each one of us.
When you are at the fork of the road, the path of least resistance to GC is a sensible one, that is when you don't have the fear of not getting your GC. It is ultimately up to each one of us.
ramus
06-28 03:34 PM
Please don't create any new thred.. Please close it .. We already have 4 threds going with different rumers.. No need to put another one..
My answer is - No body knows what will happen.. So just chill and enjoy..
Did any one heard of EB3 India 485 Approved after June 26? Looks like EB3 visa numbers for this quarter for India is exhausted! If so then who many will be available in next quarter?
When will the 40K unused EB quota of visa numbers will be available /open? In mid September? Can any of the Gurus explain this?
My friend took info-pass and he was told that the EB3 India visa numbers are over for now and his case may be approved in next quota.
Looks like the first 40K in the 485 queue whose processing is done will get there 485�s approved in late September.
For some one like me who files 485 in June chances of approval in this year is less.:confused:
I just want to set the expectations real so that we will not be subjected to perpetual checking of online LUD/Status, forums and also avoid huge disappointment.
Pns27
***********************
Concurrent I-140/I-485: No
PD June 2002-non-RIR
I-140 approved from NSC
I485:--
Mailed to (state NSC/TSC): NSC
Received at (state NSC/TSC): NSC
Receipt Date: 06/07/07
Notice Date: 06/22/07
FP Noticed Received on:?
My answer is - No body knows what will happen.. So just chill and enjoy..
Did any one heard of EB3 India 485 Approved after June 26? Looks like EB3 visa numbers for this quarter for India is exhausted! If so then who many will be available in next quarter?
When will the 40K unused EB quota of visa numbers will be available /open? In mid September? Can any of the Gurus explain this?
My friend took info-pass and he was told that the EB3 India visa numbers are over for now and his case may be approved in next quota.
Looks like the first 40K in the 485 queue whose processing is done will get there 485�s approved in late September.
For some one like me who files 485 in June chances of approval in this year is less.:confused:
I just want to set the expectations real so that we will not be subjected to perpetual checking of online LUD/Status, forums and also avoid huge disappointment.
Pns27
***********************
Concurrent I-140/I-485: No
PD June 2002-non-RIR
I-140 approved from NSC
I485:--
Mailed to (state NSC/TSC): NSC
Received at (state NSC/TSC): NSC
Receipt Date: 06/07/07
Notice Date: 06/22/07
FP Noticed Received on:?
more...
--Love--My-Album-1--comments--davDIVERS--ceca--CORAZONES--love-and-affection_large.jpg "007 love quotes")
bkarnik
04-18 09:21 AM
Guys:
Before we get all excited and start signing petitions, please check to confirm whether you are legally safe by doing so. For more information please see this link from Murthy website http://www.murthy.com/news/n_parele.html
I write this because the petition is sponsored by a campaign manager for Kennedy. Please be very careful in signing such petitions. I would recommend discussing any such petition on this forum and getting input from the IV folks or from your lawyers before signing any petition that supports an individual or any particular political party.
Before we get all excited and start signing petitions, please check to confirm whether you are legally safe by doing so. For more information please see this link from Murthy website http://www.murthy.com/news/n_parele.html
I write this because the petition is sponsored by a campaign manager for Kennedy. Please be very careful in signing such petitions. I would recommend discussing any such petition on this forum and getting input from the IV folks or from your lawyers before signing any petition that supports an individual or any particular political party.
vparam
05-14 08:04 PM
My PD will become current. I want to support IV, so contributing agaain.
today 100, 450 till date.
today 100, 450 till date.
more...
jgh_res
05-17 10:01 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
kondur_007
03-16 01:13 PM
can someone please give me some advices about this situation?
I'm in US since Aug 2006 with F1 visa (and F2 my spouse).
Nothing changed in 2007, and I didn't leave US at all.
Then in June 2008, my visa status changed to H1B (and H4 for spouse).
I am also receiving tuition waiver as employment benefits (I got the 1098T form for that).
Spouse does not have ITIN and never filed any returns in US. By the way, is there a problem I didn't request an ITIN for my spouse by now? should F2 always have an ITIN even if spouse has never had any income of any sort?
I have always filed 1040NR-EZ (for 2006 and 2007) but didn't claim spouse these 2 years (while on F2)
My question is whether I have substantial presence in US after 3 years or not, and which form should I file. How about spouse's (with no ITIN) tax forms? Thank you.
You are "dual status alien" for the purpose of tax filing. I came across same thing when I switched from F1 to H1.
This is one situation, where you ideally "have to Itemized" (and this is true for India and it depends on Treaty with every country, it is different for lot of coutries).
My sincere advise, just go to H and R block and get it done (this was the only year when I had my taxes done through H and R block). From the next year you will be "resident alien" and should be able to file using turbotax by yourself.
Good Luck.
I'm in US since Aug 2006 with F1 visa (and F2 my spouse).
Nothing changed in 2007, and I didn't leave US at all.
Then in June 2008, my visa status changed to H1B (and H4 for spouse).
I am also receiving tuition waiver as employment benefits (I got the 1098T form for that).
Spouse does not have ITIN and never filed any returns in US. By the way, is there a problem I didn't request an ITIN for my spouse by now? should F2 always have an ITIN even if spouse has never had any income of any sort?
I have always filed 1040NR-EZ (for 2006 and 2007) but didn't claim spouse these 2 years (while on F2)
My question is whether I have substantial presence in US after 3 years or not, and which form should I file. How about spouse's (with no ITIN) tax forms? Thank you.
You are "dual status alien" for the purpose of tax filing. I came across same thing when I switched from F1 to H1.
This is one situation, where you ideally "have to Itemized" (and this is true for India and it depends on Treaty with every country, it is different for lot of coutries).
My sincere advise, just go to H and R block and get it done (this was the only year when I had my taxes done through H and R block). From the next year you will be "resident alien" and should be able to file using turbotax by yourself.
Good Luck.
more...
Motivated
01-06 08:38 AM
So many bills are introduced but most don't even see day of light.. I personally don't see this ever passing the congress.. For most treaty countries this feature is already available and its called E1/E2 visa.. There is no limit on number of people and number years for visa.
Exactly, many bills are introduced, but >80% of them do not come out of the committees. If the bill has support form a large number of legislators then it has a chance! Besides Lugar and Kerry who else supports this bill?
Exactly, many bills are introduced, but >80% of them do not come out of the committees. If the bill has support form a large number of legislators then it has a chance! Besides Lugar and Kerry who else supports this bill?
boldm28
04-19 03:48 PM
I asked this question few days ago but no one responded. I guess nothing is going on. Why do they waste tax payers money by introducing bills and not acting on them.
Y cant you ask the same question in your home country assuming it is India
you wont get any reply not in 100 years
Any way, pack your bags or wait for ten years.
Y cant you ask the same question in your home country assuming it is India
you wont get any reply not in 100 years
Y cant you ask the same question in your home country assuming it is India
you wont get any reply not in 100 years
Any way, pack your bags or wait for ten years.
Y cant you ask the same question in your home country assuming it is India
you wont get any reply not in 100 years
more...
immilaw
09-21 08:37 AM
I filed 140 to VSC. Would it be transfered to TSC. It is still pending. I got a RFE on 140. Should i send the docs to VSC or TSC. Can anyone please answer this.
Thanks.
You should send the documents to the service center which issued the RFE. The mail address of the service center should appear on the RFE.
Thanks.
You should send the documents to the service center which issued the RFE. The mail address of the service center should appear on the RFE.
gparr
March 14th, 2004, 09:36 PM
Lecter,
So we can conclude that resolution and focus are a little shakey?
Gayr
So we can conclude that resolution and focus are a little shakey?
Gayr
more...
frostrated
06-25 01:17 PM
Here are the questions that I have:
1) As per recent news, a lot of applications are PRE-ADJUDICATED. Now does this mean that those applications will be adjudicated when their PD becomes current , meaning to be approved based on a current PD , does the application has to go through the process of adjudication. Or does it mean adjudication is defined as "processing complete but is independent of PD being current or not" . What does the adjudication means in the above particular context.
2) IN this particular question, the answer does not specifically mean PD being current or not. It only mentions that "need to have job offer when AOS is being adjudicated". If you interpret it this way , then yes PD being current or not does not matter. And you will need to show u have job offer. BUT if definition of adjudication also involves approving the I-485 then one can argue that yes unless ur PD is current u cannot be approved and hence u do not need to have job offer if your PD is current.
I would like to know what various attorneys think about this
1. My view on pre-adjudication is that they processing is done on the application and is put in an approvable status. once the PD is current and the immigrant visa number is available, then such an application can be approved. but it has to be noted that these applications can be reviewed again before approving and can be denied at that time.
2. when an AOS application is being adjudicated, if the underlying terms of the 485 application are not satisfied, then it can be denied. it does not matter if the PD is current. the 485 is based on the 140, which in turn is based on a bonafide job. using ac21, you can change employers, but i still feel that you need to be employed in a similar position and not looking for a similar position.
any thoughts anyone?
1) As per recent news, a lot of applications are PRE-ADJUDICATED. Now does this mean that those applications will be adjudicated when their PD becomes current , meaning to be approved based on a current PD , does the application has to go through the process of adjudication. Or does it mean adjudication is defined as "processing complete but is independent of PD being current or not" . What does the adjudication means in the above particular context.
2) IN this particular question, the answer does not specifically mean PD being current or not. It only mentions that "need to have job offer when AOS is being adjudicated". If you interpret it this way , then yes PD being current or not does not matter. And you will need to show u have job offer. BUT if definition of adjudication also involves approving the I-485 then one can argue that yes unless ur PD is current u cannot be approved and hence u do not need to have job offer if your PD is current.
I would like to know what various attorneys think about this
1. My view on pre-adjudication is that they processing is done on the application and is put in an approvable status. once the PD is current and the immigrant visa number is available, then such an application can be approved. but it has to be noted that these applications can be reviewed again before approving and can be denied at that time.
2. when an AOS application is being adjudicated, if the underlying terms of the 485 application are not satisfied, then it can be denied. it does not matter if the PD is current. the 485 is based on the 140, which in turn is based on a bonafide job. using ac21, you can change employers, but i still feel that you need to be employed in a similar position and not looking for a similar position.
any thoughts anyone?
harrydr
01-06 08:05 AM
Please advise if 5.5+ years of experience and an Advanced degree in Electronics would qualify me for porting me from EB2 to EB1. I have been waiting to file for my I-140 over an year now but things aren't looking anywhere near to it.
So just wanted to understand if this was even legally possible.
So just wanted to understand if this was even legally possible.
more...
anantc
12-18 03:55 PM
Yes,
I would also like to the H3 and L1/B1-B2 processing from F1(OPT) for the intermediate period of OPT(May end) to H1 (Oct 1st).
Can anyone on this forum let me know what is the process & requirements for these to stay in US during those 4 months..
:confused: Thanks.:confused:
I would also like to the H3 and L1/B1-B2 processing from F1(OPT) for the intermediate period of OPT(May end) to H1 (Oct 1st).
Can anyone on this forum let me know what is the process & requirements for these to stay in US during those 4 months..
:confused: Thanks.:confused:
krishnam70
11-20 03:44 PM
Hi friends ,
Im planing to travell on AP in december .I have my H1 approved till 2010.
I heard travelling with Emirates Air line may be a problem because they dont know about AP .Is that true ?
2-what documents i need to have with me when comming back on AP ?
Thanks for any inputs .
Not true, every airline worth its salt knows about these immigration procedures and documentation required. Travelled via emirates twice on AP no issues. It is advisable to carry copies of all of your documents with you when you enter the US so that you can provide the same to the IO at the POE. Ofcourse you need to take the 2 orignals of the Advance Parole and present them. If it makes your case here are what i used to carry always
- Letter of employment
- ead copy
- 485 receipt letter
- bank statement 1-2 cycles
- i-140 copy
- l/c copy
- passports :)
good luck
kris
Im planing to travell on AP in december .I have my H1 approved till 2010.
I heard travelling with Emirates Air line may be a problem because they dont know about AP .Is that true ?
2-what documents i need to have with me when comming back on AP ?
Thanks for any inputs .
Not true, every airline worth its salt knows about these immigration procedures and documentation required. Travelled via emirates twice on AP no issues. It is advisable to carry copies of all of your documents with you when you enter the US so that you can provide the same to the IO at the POE. Ofcourse you need to take the 2 orignals of the Advance Parole and present them. If it makes your case here are what i used to carry always
- Letter of employment
- ead copy
- 485 receipt letter
- bank statement 1-2 cycles
- i-140 copy
- l/c copy
- passports :)
good luck
kris
gkaplan
07-20 01:04 PM
Hi there
thank you for the information you provided above. and congrats on your h1b.
my question is: i'm j1 and mu husband is j2, and he's been working with his ead for the last 4-5 years. we are subjected to 2 year HRR. in order for my husband to get h1b, we need the waiver. can he apply for the waiver independently? just like you did - independently from your j1 principal?
can his company apply for a H1B just after he gets the favorable rec. letter? or doeshe have to wait for the final decision from USCIS? or application for H1B with the fav.recom. letter is only ok if we are doing premium processing? because i get different answers from different lawyers about this. one says we have to wait for the final decision from uscis, one says different....
thank you.
thank you for the information you provided above. and congrats on your h1b.
my question is: i'm j1 and mu husband is j2, and he's been working with his ead for the last 4-5 years. we are subjected to 2 year HRR. in order for my husband to get h1b, we need the waiver. can he apply for the waiver independently? just like you did - independently from your j1 principal?
can his company apply for a H1B just after he gets the favorable rec. letter? or doeshe have to wait for the final decision from USCIS? or application for H1B with the fav.recom. letter is only ok if we are doing premium processing? because i get different answers from different lawyers about this. one says we have to wait for the final decision from uscis, one says different....
thank you.
go_gc_way
08-15 07:49 PM
If you are sick of the GC retrogression and Canada is not your cup of tea, UK is another option for you. You can calculate your points online to see if you are qualified for the UK Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP). It is always good to more than one option.
http://www.workpermit.com/uk/hsmp_calculator.htm
:cool:
Thanks for posting this information, I was looking for it.
http://www.workpermit.com/uk/hsmp_calculator.htm
:cool:
Thanks for posting this information, I was looking for it.
prem_goel
03-08 09:57 AM
Hello Ann,
Thanks for your prompt reply. The situation it seems is more precarious than I thought. She's carrying the official letter from her company that describes her B-1 duties (like requirement gathering, project transition, business meetings etc).
Would you suggest any other measure? I want to make sure she's not denied entry. It'll be terrible if anything of that sort happens especially with no fault of hers.
If she's denied entry, who'll be responsible for sending her back to India? Will CBP make arrangements? Will she be bar entry to US again?
Hi Prem,
Your sister will certainly be subject to greater scrutiny if she returns immediately to the US after an extended stay. Whether she is is ultimately admitted to the US or denied admission and sent back home really depends on several factors. First, can your sister persuasively demonstrate that she has strong ties to her home in India, to which she intends to return at the conclusion of her business trip? Next, can she document that she will be engaged in permissible B-1 activities of limited duration? And finally, on what side of the bed did the CBE officer wake up?
Thanks for your prompt reply. The situation it seems is more precarious than I thought. She's carrying the official letter from her company that describes her B-1 duties (like requirement gathering, project transition, business meetings etc).
Would you suggest any other measure? I want to make sure she's not denied entry. It'll be terrible if anything of that sort happens especially with no fault of hers.
If she's denied entry, who'll be responsible for sending her back to India? Will CBP make arrangements? Will she be bar entry to US again?
Hi Prem,
Your sister will certainly be subject to greater scrutiny if she returns immediately to the US after an extended stay. Whether she is is ultimately admitted to the US or denied admission and sent back home really depends on several factors. First, can your sister persuasively demonstrate that she has strong ties to her home in India, to which she intends to return at the conclusion of her business trip? Next, can she document that she will be engaged in permissible B-1 activities of limited duration? And finally, on what side of the bed did the CBE officer wake up?
No comments:
Post a Comment