doubtfeb2013 Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 Hi, I had H1B1 (Not H1b) visa in the year 2000, I got it stamped in India and worked in US for 2 years. Now this H1b1 is only for singapore / chile people became active on January 1, 2004 Can any advanced member/senior can explain me what is the visa type H1B1 before year 2004, did they had agreement with India for H1b1 visa also ? thanks db Link to comment
JoeF Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 The H1B1 is specific to the Chile/Singapore agreement. It did not exist before, and it does not exist for any other country. Link to comment
doubtfeb2013 Posted March 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 The H1B1 is specific to the Chile/Singapore agreement. It did not exist before, and it does not exist for any other country. But, I have received I129 with H1b1 in india from a US employer stamped in Indian US consulate and went to US and returned back in year 2000. I agree your point, that H1B1 for Chile/Singapore is started from Jan 2004. Any expert opinion pls ? Link to comment
pontevecchio Posted March 29, 2016 Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 That was a clerical error. Link to comment
JoeF Posted March 29, 2016 Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 But, I have received I129 with H1b1 in india from a US employer stamped in Indian US consulate and went to US and returned back in year 2000. I agree your point, that H1B1 for Chile/Singapore is started from Jan 2004. Any expert opinion pls ? Back then, the form may have said H1B1, but it was an H1B. I think my old H1 had that as well. I think I wondered about that back when they introduced the H1B1. All this is essentially just the paragraph in the law where the category is defined, for the H1, INA 101(a)(15)(H). Back then, there was a section 101(a)(H)(i)(b)(i), I think. Nowadays, the H1B1 is defined in section 101(a)(15)(H(i)(b1). The law sections change over time. Nothing to worry about. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.