suni
08-27 01:04 PM
I went for Driver licence renewal.I have I797 H1B notice of approval for 2 more years.But I don't have it stamped in passport.So when they see it,they said they won't consider it as visa on passport is not valid and expired.Though I am not using ,I have valid EAD card also.So When I shown it ,they renewd my licence.Now I am thinking,is it ok If I use my EAD card for licence renewal as I am not using EAD status now.I want to be on H1B only.I don't want to use EAD now. can anybody tell me will it be alright to use EAD?Does it effect anywhere in my status?
Please respond.
Please respond.
ps57002
09-15 10:20 PM
Enough of taking whatever crap employer gives us...time to stand up...time to be in D.C...is NOW
gvenkat
05-20 04:33 PM
President Obama recently mentioned plans for holding a White House meeting to discuss proceeding with immigration reform legislation. And now he is keeping that promise by setting June 8th, just three weeks from now, to hold the meeting. According to Politico: "The meeting will be an opportunity to launch a policy conversation that we hope will be able to start a debate that will take place in Congress later in the year," the official, who asked not to be named, said. Asked if the session would be billed as a summit or a forum, like similar meetings on health care...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/obama-sets-date-for-immigration-reform-white-house-conversation.html)
Good if at all anything thats our only hope. If there is only amnesty for illegals atleast we can be illegals rightfully.. like overstay or even not be on H1.. etc... :D:D
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/obama-sets-date-for-immigration-reform-white-house-conversation.html)
Good if at all anything thats our only hope. If there is only amnesty for illegals atleast we can be illegals rightfully.. like overstay or even not be on H1.. etc... :D:D
xiaomatu
06-05 05:06 PM
Thanks for the reply. But like I mentioned, this case was approved on 5/8/2008 and the approval notice was sent on 5/8/2008 and received on 5/14/2008. Between 5/8/2008 and 5/22/2008 the status was "approved, approval notice sent".
Afterwards since 5/22/2008 the online status became "new documents sent on 5/22/2008, you should receive it within 30 days". I do not think this "new document" is the approval notice coz I even received it before they sent. Just curious what could this "New document" be. Would it change the status of my I-140 (like revoke or withdraw or RFE)?
Afterwards since 5/22/2008 the online status became "new documents sent on 5/22/2008, you should receive it within 30 days". I do not think this "new document" is the approval notice coz I even received it before they sent. Just curious what could this "New document" be. Would it change the status of my I-140 (like revoke or withdraw or RFE)?
more...
cygent
04-03 04:03 AM
It is not that I want to ask many questions.
It is just that I want to prepare for the consequences. Also, this information could be important to somebody else in the future, I am not thinking just about myself, so please understand & respect that.
Thanks for your help!
It is just that I want to prepare for the consequences. Also, this information could be important to somebody else in the future, I am not thinking just about myself, so please understand & respect that.
Thanks for your help!
Maverick1
10-29 01:40 PM
H4 people used to use TaxID instead of SSN in their tax returns (joint filing for ex.). What do they use when they get SSN after EAD ? Do they use SSN or just the Tax ID. Is there any requirement that they inform IRS that they got SSN and start using it instead ?
more...
simple1
10-06 10:31 PM
Troll Alert.
This is a Fake post. read word by word you will understand.
Read all the posts by user nish. he/she is an anti immigrant.
Thanks for your reply....
I have applied H1 through consulate process so I did not get I-94 . I have H1 approval receipt.
During COS process ..I will not be working on project so is this become problem for denial of COS status
Please advice...
Thanks....
In one of the previous posts the same user tries to taint l1b visa holders.
my consultatn lawyer told me that i can not stay here but my consultant told me that you can stay here USCIS will not come to know about it.
how USCIS come to know that i stayed illiegal in US
This is a Fake post. read word by word you will understand.
Read all the posts by user nish. he/she is an anti immigrant.
Thanks for your reply....
I have applied H1 through consulate process so I did not get I-94 . I have H1 approval receipt.
During COS process ..I will not be working on project so is this become problem for denial of COS status
Please advice...
Thanks....
In one of the previous posts the same user tries to taint l1b visa holders.
my consultatn lawyer told me that i can not stay here but my consultant told me that you can stay here USCIS will not come to know about it.
how USCIS come to know that i stayed illiegal in US
getrdone
09-17 01:54 AM
I got similar information from IO
I am not sure what he meant by before it expires?
Did you ask what happens when it expires?
and what about the 180 days rule? I was told that they would look in application pending more than 1 yr during Nov.
And application pending more than 2 yrs are already processed ( as per press release)
good luck !!
Just got off the phone with customer service rep. I called them to know the status of my service request that was created 45 days ago. After some wait, one lady picked up my call. I asked her to check the status of my service request. She tried for 10 mins to pull up that info but she couldn't pull up because of some technical issues. She escalated my call to another level.
One rep picked up my call.He seems to be nice and answered my questions. He said my case is under review as of 8/21/2008. When I asked him to see whether my name check is cleared or not, he said it is still pending as of now. FBI name check was initiated on Sep 18, 2007 and it should expire on Nov 30, 2008. Before that they should get a response for name check.
We gave our finger prints on Nov 2, 2007. How come name check was initiated on Sep 18, 2007? I am not sure whether i can believe his words?
I have a soft LUD on 8/21/2008. According to CSR words, i can assume that case was assigned to an officer. But i am not sure about the name check process.
Is any one got the similar response?
Please share your thoughts on this
Thanks,
palemguy
I am not sure what he meant by before it expires?
Did you ask what happens when it expires?
and what about the 180 days rule? I was told that they would look in application pending more than 1 yr during Nov.
And application pending more than 2 yrs are already processed ( as per press release)
good luck !!
Just got off the phone with customer service rep. I called them to know the status of my service request that was created 45 days ago. After some wait, one lady picked up my call. I asked her to check the status of my service request. She tried for 10 mins to pull up that info but she couldn't pull up because of some technical issues. She escalated my call to another level.
One rep picked up my call.He seems to be nice and answered my questions. He said my case is under review as of 8/21/2008. When I asked him to see whether my name check is cleared or not, he said it is still pending as of now. FBI name check was initiated on Sep 18, 2007 and it should expire on Nov 30, 2008. Before that they should get a response for name check.
We gave our finger prints on Nov 2, 2007. How come name check was initiated on Sep 18, 2007? I am not sure whether i can believe his words?
I have a soft LUD on 8/21/2008. According to CSR words, i can assume that case was assigned to an officer. But i am not sure about the name check process.
Is any one got the similar response?
Please share your thoughts on this
Thanks,
palemguy
more...
indyanguy
10-31 04:21 PM
I have filed for 140/485 EB3 on July 2nd. I am planning to start a EB2 process and carry over the EB3 Priority date to the new application. I have a few questions
1. My thinking is the process works something like this. I start a new PERM for EB2 while my EB3 140 is pending. After both the EB3 I140 and EB2 PERM are approved, I file for EB2 140 putting in a request to carry my old PD over. Is this correct?
2. Do I need to be with my GC sponsoring company until both EB3 140 and EB2 PERM are approved? If I use AC21 (after EB3 140 approval), will I still be able to interfile?
Thanks in advance
1. My thinking is the process works something like this. I start a new PERM for EB2 while my EB3 140 is pending. After both the EB3 I140 and EB2 PERM are approved, I file for EB2 140 putting in a request to carry my old PD over. Is this correct?
2. Do I need to be with my GC sponsoring company until both EB3 140 and EB2 PERM are approved? If I use AC21 (after EB3 140 approval), will I still be able to interfile?
Thanks in advance
miamikk
02-06 08:49 PM
I was able to file for COS on my own and successfully got it approved. The process took just about a month.
more...
gc28262
07-28 01:48 PM
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration;_ylt=AgcIIY.ht_GJNzOqM3G8sH 6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNta2N1b3FnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNz I4L3VzX2FyaXpvbmFfaW1taWdyYXRpb24EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBv cHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwM3BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW 5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqdWRnZWJsb2Nrc3A-)
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
add78
10-02 09:48 AM
This is a little tricky.
A person is in a valid H1-B status when
1) He/She is a full time employee of the Sponsoring company AND
2) Receives regularly scheduled (can be weekly/bi-weekly/monthly) salary from the same sponsoring employer which exceeds the amount mentioned in the LCA filed.
Thus, the H1-B status depends on first, an ongoing and current (a.k.a. valid at given moment) employer-employee relationship that satisfies 1) and 2) above.
#2) above is a criteria for #1) above. The employment (a.k.a. employer-employee relationship) is the primary basis (#1) which is "fulfilled" by the regular salary (#2).
In case of a lay-off, the severance pay is determined by the company policy (BTW company cannot discriminate the severance criteria between H1-Bs and GC/Citizens), so the severance could be given to the "laid-off" employee in subsequent regular paychecks or a lump sum amount, depending on company policies.
But, the very fact that he/she will receive severance (no matter over next few regular paychecks or one time payment), implies the "severed" Employer-Employee relationship, which in turn makes the person "NOT" in a valid H1-B status. However, USCIS will give the person some leeway at their discretion to find a new employer who will sponsor his new H1-B (There is no such thing as H1-B transfer, every H1-B is a new application, it's just that the person will not be counted in the cap if he/she has already been counted)
Therefore, in a lay-off situation, it is always better to start to look for a new job with a new employer that will file H1-B for the laid-off person ASAP. The longer you wait, the more you jeopardize your status.
Hope This Helps.
If my answer helped you, please consider donating to Your Own Cause, i.e. IV.
IV = I+We
A person is in a valid H1-B status when
1) He/She is a full time employee of the Sponsoring company AND
2) Receives regularly scheduled (can be weekly/bi-weekly/monthly) salary from the same sponsoring employer which exceeds the amount mentioned in the LCA filed.
Thus, the H1-B status depends on first, an ongoing and current (a.k.a. valid at given moment) employer-employee relationship that satisfies 1) and 2) above.
#2) above is a criteria for #1) above. The employment (a.k.a. employer-employee relationship) is the primary basis (#1) which is "fulfilled" by the regular salary (#2).
In case of a lay-off, the severance pay is determined by the company policy (BTW company cannot discriminate the severance criteria between H1-Bs and GC/Citizens), so the severance could be given to the "laid-off" employee in subsequent regular paychecks or a lump sum amount, depending on company policies.
But, the very fact that he/she will receive severance (no matter over next few regular paychecks or one time payment), implies the "severed" Employer-Employee relationship, which in turn makes the person "NOT" in a valid H1-B status. However, USCIS will give the person some leeway at their discretion to find a new employer who will sponsor his new H1-B (There is no such thing as H1-B transfer, every H1-B is a new application, it's just that the person will not be counted in the cap if he/she has already been counted)
Therefore, in a lay-off situation, it is always better to start to look for a new job with a new employer that will file H1-B for the laid-off person ASAP. The longer you wait, the more you jeopardize your status.
Hope This Helps.
If my answer helped you, please consider donating to Your Own Cause, i.e. IV.
IV = I+We
more...
lord_labaku
08-14 06:19 PM
I am sure people from 2001-2006 EB2/EB3 who are still waiting are jealous of your situation even though you feel like you are in a big mess ( might have contributed to a red dot)
GCBy3000
09-07 06:53 PM
This poll should also collect the year of PD and whether they have any dependents.
more...
Happyday
06-29 09:48 AM
Reminder: Those living in highrise apartments or large apartment complex should put up the names of their family members on the mail box such that the green card mails are not returned to the USCIS. Under the current USCIS policy, the U.S. Postal Services are not permitted to deliver the USCIS enevelope with "Return Requested" red stamp other than the specific individual named on the envelope. This is particularly true with the green card delivery.
ilikekilo
07-18 10:43 AM
eb3,
with all due respect, I really doubt if this is the bet way to get people to donate. Calling people cheap is not a nice thing and generally not recommended.
I know your intentions are good and ...
interpret nepa's message as people who did not contribute at all but yet expect a lot or whatever from IV can be categorized as cheap...
lets help ourselves...
with all due respect, I really doubt if this is the bet way to get people to donate. Calling people cheap is not a nice thing and generally not recommended.
I know your intentions are good and ...
interpret nepa's message as people who did not contribute at all but yet expect a lot or whatever from IV can be categorized as cheap...
lets help ourselves...
more...
nisthana
02-18 11:55 AM
I have my first GC interview next month. I had a DUI few years back that I forgot to mention in the 485 app as I thought this was a traffic related offense. I want to know what are my options now? My lawyer suggests I file for some kind of waiver and suggests I take an attorney with me to the interview. She also asked me to get court certified copies of the conviction and that I completed all the required tasks assigned by the court.
Is this going to affect my GC in anyway? I need some guidance here.
Is this going to affect my GC in anyway? I need some guidance here.
saravanaraj.sathya
08-20 12:49 PM
If you are not satisfied with ur current job/salary then you can think of moving..I would say get H1 transferred to big concerns as direct employee...then you dont needs to be worried abt being paid. Job market is good for .NEt rite now so you should get a good offer..but try to stick wtih ur current employer for atlz 180 days before you move and also make sure that ur I-140 is approved.
qplearn
09-10 10:31 AM
Bravo!
That is exactly what we want the house members to know. Our lives are on hold; my wife cannot work, and I cannot move!
Also, a BIG THANK YOU for distancing ourselves from the H1B quota issue that the industry is after. That will get us nowhere in the house that struck it down last time from their bill.
Keep up the good work!
qplearn
That is exactly what we want the house members to know. Our lives are on hold; my wife cannot work, and I cannot move!
Also, a BIG THANK YOU for distancing ourselves from the H1B quota issue that the industry is after. That will get us nowhere in the house that struck it down last time from their bill.
Keep up the good work!
qplearn
Saralayar
09-02 10:50 AM
I'm just curious as there has been approvals contrary to the bulletins in the years before. Please don't flame me as i'm just looking for any signs of hope around the corner for the EB3 folks.
Yes lot of EB3 approvals for many in their SWEET DREAMS.. yesterday night...:)
Yes lot of EB3 approvals for many in their SWEET DREAMS.. yesterday night...:)
nkavjs
12-18 01:36 AM
Hello all:
I have few questions related to my travel plans to India. We will be leaving in January 2009.
We have our Advance Parole and EAD approved till 2009. I-485 is still pending . EB3 India.
My H1B visa stamp is not current or up-to-date on my passport. We have booked our flights with North-west airlines and KLM which will depart from Detroit-Amsterdam-Mumbai. I have few questions pertaining to my travel.
1) Would I still need to get a transit visa for Amsterdam, even though our flight will be halting for few may be 3-4 hours at Amsterdam- Schiphol Airport? If I do have to arrange for Amsterdam transit-visa, then where should I start as far as documentation is concerned.
2) Besides carrying my Passport, Advance parole copies with me, please advise me if I need to carry any more documentation from my end.
3) Would I need a copy of employment letter for visa purpose, or carrying my recent pay-stubs would be fine?
I would appreciate if you could please guide me with the travel related visa -requirements and documentation. Thanks!
RPH
I have few questions related to my travel plans to India. We will be leaving in January 2009.
We have our Advance Parole and EAD approved till 2009. I-485 is still pending . EB3 India.
My H1B visa stamp is not current or up-to-date on my passport. We have booked our flights with North-west airlines and KLM which will depart from Detroit-Amsterdam-Mumbai. I have few questions pertaining to my travel.
1) Would I still need to get a transit visa for Amsterdam, even though our flight will be halting for few may be 3-4 hours at Amsterdam- Schiphol Airport? If I do have to arrange for Amsterdam transit-visa, then where should I start as far as documentation is concerned.
2) Besides carrying my Passport, Advance parole copies with me, please advise me if I need to carry any more documentation from my end.
3) Would I need a copy of employment letter for visa purpose, or carrying my recent pay-stubs would be fine?
I would appreciate if you could please guide me with the travel related visa -requirements and documentation. Thanks!
RPH