seeking_GC
07-29 12:39 PM
I would be very surprised if it became current in the next month.
wallpaper Prince William horoscope
bkarnik
09-06 05:01 PM
I believe that could be a problem. If your Company is paying you in Canada, but asking you to work in the US I am not sure if your H1 would be valid. Per my limited knowledge, H1 can be sponsored by an employer having a business in the US. I am sure this is an issue that is a clash between the tax laws and the immigration laws. I would request you to submit your question for the next attorney call and hopefully we get an clear answer.
perm2gc
08-23 04:45 PM
Thanks for your reply. I read somewhere that if I have a approved 140 and have already applied for 485 I can only get a 1 year ext on H1 and not 3 year. 3 year H1 ext beyond 6 years isonly for people who are not able to apply for 485 due to retrogression. Is that true? I want to maintain the H1 to be able to easily transfer n case I loose my job.
yes
yes
2011 over Prince William#39;s hair
sk2006
07-04 11:48 AM
Answer to original question: YES any legal resident can buy Guns in CA. There is a test to be passed at authorised Gun dealer and there is a 10 days waiting period before you can be issued a gun.
However What about learning to use the weapons? Are there places where one can learn it?
No point buying a gun when you don't know how to use.
However What about learning to use the weapons? Are there places where one can learn it?
No point buying a gun when you don't know how to use.
more...
CantLeaveAmerica
03-28 09:48 AM
guys, Murthy says EB2 will move forward in May 2008 bulletine. Reason is getting leftover visa from EB1 India's category.
http://murthy.com/bulletin.html
hoping big forward move.:D
Great for us...aren't are Indian PHD's in the US are as scholarly and motivated as before? lol To think that there are left over visas in this category beats me ! :D
http://murthy.com/bulletin.html
hoping big forward move.:D
Great for us...aren't are Indian PHD's in the US are as scholarly and motivated as before? lol To think that there are left over visas in this category beats me ! :D
walking_dude
12-12 04:12 PM
I'm not surprised if there are Eb2 prior to 2000. Almost every employer substituted every LC they could subsitute just before the deadline to end Substitution. Some estimates put it at 175,000. So I'm not surprised it there are hidden Eb2s who have PDs prior to 2000 !
Of course, none of them will come here and claim it !
Of course, none of them will come here and claim it !
more...
Bhaskar_80
06-10 10:28 AM
Hi Gurus,
I came to U.S in May 2006. The company for which currently I am working (Company A) filed my labor (EB2) in October 2009. The labor got approved in May 2010.
My Visa is expiring in March 2011.
Now the attorney has asked me for the documents to proceed with I140.Hopefully my I140 will be filed in couple weeks.
Now my question is that, I am planning to change my job (to employer B) in September 2010.
Please help with your valuable answers for the following questions:-
1. How long does it take to get the i140 approved?
(Regular/Premium)
2. What will happen to the PD if employer A withdraws or revokes my I140 approval after I join company B? Can I still carry over my PD?
3. At this point of time how long will I get the new Visa extension when I do the H1B Transfer from employer B?
4. What are the documents I need from employer A if I have to carry forward my PD to the employer B's Green Card process?
5. Does the new job need to be the same title and job requirements as the old one?
I came to U.S in May 2006. The company for which currently I am working (Company A) filed my labor (EB2) in October 2009. The labor got approved in May 2010.
My Visa is expiring in March 2011.
Now the attorney has asked me for the documents to proceed with I140.Hopefully my I140 will be filed in couple weeks.
Now my question is that, I am planning to change my job (to employer B) in September 2010.
Please help with your valuable answers for the following questions:-
1. How long does it take to get the i140 approved?
(Regular/Premium)
2. What will happen to the PD if employer A withdraws or revokes my I140 approval after I join company B? Can I still carry over my PD?
3. At this point of time how long will I get the new Visa extension when I do the H1B Transfer from employer B?
4. What are the documents I need from employer A if I have to carry forward my PD to the employer B's Green Card process?
5. Does the new job need to be the same title and job requirements as the old one?
2010 Prince William
rajuram
03-24 11:24 PM
Several weeks ago, I sent two messages to Obama about immigration issues, using "contact us" link on the whitehouse.gov website. Surprisingly today (after so many days) I got an email receipt back from them. Even though their message only had a standard reply, but it looks like some one is actually reading the messages (otherwise I would have gotten a standard reply immediately).
My suggestion to IV & everyone else here is to use this method to send out our concerns to the president. Specifically request recapture of visa numbers...add that it will help resolve the housing market problem.
My suggestion to IV & everyone else here is to use this method to send out our concerns to the president. Specifically request recapture of visa numbers...add that it will help resolve the housing market problem.
more...
milind70
07-25 11:19 PM
I just received a confirmation email that I485 of my wife got approved just a couple of days back. But I myself have not received anything. Its kind of weird because she was my dependent and I was the primary applicant.
Can somebody please suggest if they have seen something like this before ?Do I need to do anything ?
It is not wierd, i have heard about such cases where dependent gets approval prior to primary. You may want to take an Infopass and visit the local office and inquire with them regarding your case. I think you should see your approval pretty soon.
Can somebody please suggest if they have seen something like this before ?Do I need to do anything ?
It is not wierd, i have heard about such cases where dependent gets approval prior to primary. You may want to take an Infopass and visit the local office and inquire with them regarding your case. I think you should see your approval pretty soon.
hair prince william beard. prince
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
lostinbeta
10-03 12:51 PM
You checked it.... now I am just spamming :P
SPAM
::::runs away:::
SPAM
::::runs away:::
hot Now his brother Prince William
rp0lol
03-30 08:40 PM
Congratulations!!!
more...
house family — Prince William#39;s
Aah_GC
07-21 11:16 AM
Hi there - thanks for posting this. Am in the same boat as you were. Do you by any chance have that fax number?
tattoo Crowning glory: William shows
tinamatthew
07-20 11:59 PM
Let's assume Two people A and B entered into US on Jan 1st 2004 with Visa stamping Valid till June 2006.
A is without payslips for 2 years , that is until Dec 2005(730 days).A travels out side US and re enters into US in jan 2006 , after that he'll get the payslips and stays legal , then applies for his 485 in March 2006.Then he is maintaining
100% legal status as he is having continious payslips after his re entry.
B doesn't have payslips for period of 185 days(aggregate) in his whole stay in US , rest of the time he maintains legal status , but he never travels outside US and applies for his 485 in March 2006.
In this case B is under risk of illegal status for more than 180 days , as he never travelled outside US.How come this is fair law??This thought bugging me since coupe of days.Guys please share your ideas.
Ignorance is not an excuse! If you speed and you are stopped will you tell the police man that you didnt know the speed limit on that street? I believe all immigrants should educate themselves with the law of the country and how it will affect them. I think it is a fair law that gives some people a fresh start and is very welcome for us as immigrants.
A is without payslips for 2 years , that is until Dec 2005(730 days).A travels out side US and re enters into US in jan 2006 , after that he'll get the payslips and stays legal , then applies for his 485 in March 2006.Then he is maintaining
100% legal status as he is having continious payslips after his re entry.
B doesn't have payslips for period of 185 days(aggregate) in his whole stay in US , rest of the time he maintains legal status , but he never travels outside US and applies for his 485 in March 2006.
In this case B is under risk of illegal status for more than 180 days , as he never travelled outside US.How come this is fair law??This thought bugging me since coupe of days.Guys please share your ideas.
Ignorance is not an excuse! If you speed and you are stopped will you tell the police man that you didnt know the speed limit on that street? I believe all immigrants should educate themselves with the law of the country and how it will affect them. I think it is a fair law that gives some people a fresh start and is very welcome for us as immigrants.
more...
pictures Prince William
amitkhare77
11-17 01:29 PM
Yes you need the I-94 attached with I-797 in order to apply for change of status (H1 to H4). your employer can not keep I-797. Just tell your employer that you need to apply SSN and you need I-797.
Thanks! But if I apply for my own H4, I would require my copy of I797 and the I94 attached to that. My employer doesnt provide me with the copy of those. Would the documents from my husband good enough to apply in US?
Arpu
Thanks! But if I apply for my own H4, I would require my copy of I797 and the I94 attached to that. My employer doesnt provide me with the copy of those. Would the documents from my husband good enough to apply in US?
Arpu
dresses at what Prince William can
msyedy
12-13 01:29 PM
I like your thoughts
I would want a faster GC for many things
a) Spouse can work in any field. People can be talented in many other skills but cannot work because of EAD factor.
b) I can go out of country any time. There are lot of checks at embassy and I am with them that they need to check all about me or anyone, but it takes months to get clearance and I cannot leave my job. Nor the job would keep me with 4 month vacation .Many of my friends have gone through this.
my two cents
I would want a faster GC for many things
a) Spouse can work in any field. People can be talented in many other skills but cannot work because of EAD factor.
b) I can go out of country any time. There are lot of checks at embassy and I am with them that they need to check all about me or anyone, but it takes months to get clearance and I cannot leave my job. Nor the job would keep me with 4 month vacation .Many of my friends have gone through this.
my two cents
more...
makeup admits Prince William as
mckottayam
05-02 06:07 PM
We came back yesterday May 1st, my wife's stamp is only until May 31st and mine until Aug 30th but we had the extended approval notices. Both H1s. We both got stamped until the end of the extension date on the I 797. I don't think you'll have any problem.
girlfriend Prince William - As good as
kaisersose
04-16 03:11 PM
Thanks for the quick response gurus. Would like to know if anyone else is in the same boat. Also because of this issue, my spouse is resigning her job and going out of US for a H4 stamp. Is there any way we can avoid it as it is a oversight issue?
Thanks
This is jut my opinion, but I would do exactly this. She should not be quitting her job. If you file an MTR quickly, then she is not really breaking any rules.
Even if you get a 485 rejection notice, it is still OK as long as you file an MTR in a timely manner. The case status will change to "under process" and then you will be fine again as long as your lawyer takes care to extensively document your case so that an IO cannot make a mistake about your EB category again.
In short, just keep your jobs and file an MTR ASAP with correct documentation.
Thanks
This is jut my opinion, but I would do exactly this. She should not be quitting her job. If you file an MTR quickly, then she is not really breaking any rules.
Even if you get a 485 rejection notice, it is still OK as long as you file an MTR in a timely manner. The case status will change to "under process" and then you will be fine again as long as your lawyer takes care to extensively document your case so that an IO cannot make a mistake about your EB category again.
In short, just keep your jobs and file an MTR ASAP with correct documentation.
hairstyles from Prince William.
vin13
01-16 11:52 AM
Yes, it would be part of the lottery system (for company C)
Yes, there is a chance of H1 not going through.
It is as good as you applying for the H1-B for the first time.
Yes, there is a chance of H1 not going through.
It is as good as you applying for the H1-B for the first time.
Munshi75
03-07 09:52 PM
if you have your I-140 approved then you should be ok, provided your earned more than the prevailing wage for that year.
stemcell
02-11 11:55 AM
MOE
Please 'no more posts' and 'GOODBY' :D
Please 'no more posts' and 'GOODBY' :D
No comments:
Post a Comment