whoever
01-31 02:46 PM
how can one get copy of i140? does it not belong to the company?
wallpaper make up with the emo look,
thomachan72
01-19 03:43 PM
Let us start a thread to list of EB3 Immigrants that have done well in USA.
We always say Einstein or Noble prize winner names. But those people are EB2 or EB1. What about EB3 that is most backlogged. There will be lot of great people who came in this category. Let us find their names and list here.
I think this is indeed a great idea.... but it might be difficult to get this information. Let me start by giving one name...
1) waitingwating
Others pls add more if you know:D:D
We always say Einstein or Noble prize winner names. But those people are EB2 or EB1. What about EB3 that is most backlogged. There will be lot of great people who came in this category. Let us find their names and list here.
I think this is indeed a great idea.... but it might be difficult to get this information. Let me start by giving one name...
1) waitingwating
Others pls add more if you know:D:D
andy garcia
12-14 12:58 PM
Now I am working for a company in OPT .
My OPT start at 7/10/2006
My OPT end at 7/9/2007
add 60 days Grace period ,so the date will be 9/7/2007
So 9/7/2007 till 10/1/2007 will have 24 days GAP.
How can I do to solve it ?
You can not work after 7/9/2007.
The end of the OPT will determine when you must stop working.
The 60 days grace period is only for you to take care of business before you go back home. In your case you must wait for 2 months and 24 days before returning to work otherwise you will be in violation of your status.
andy
My OPT start at 7/10/2006
My OPT end at 7/9/2007
add 60 days Grace period ,so the date will be 9/7/2007
So 9/7/2007 till 10/1/2007 will have 24 days GAP.
How can I do to solve it ?
You can not work after 7/9/2007.
The end of the OPT will determine when you must stop working.
The 60 days grace period is only for you to take care of business before you go back home. In your case you must wait for 2 months and 24 days before returning to work otherwise you will be in violation of your status.
andy
2011 emo makeup games.
saketkapur
10-14 06:05 PM
I thought AP must ONLY be used for emergency travel purposes, not for vacations, brother's marriage etc. Some IV members shared their experiences at the POE, the IO may ask why you left US, what was the emergency? Please correct me if I am wrong. Can AP be used for casual travel also? Thanks.
Not a lawyer. This is not a legal advice.
I think that is the humanitarian parole......but there have been over aggressive officers at the POE who mix up the two......
My suggestion to you is use your H1B(if possible) or take an infopass and get an expedited AP.
Not a lawyer. This is not a legal advice.
I think that is the humanitarian parole......but there have been over aggressive officers at the POE who mix up the two......
My suggestion to you is use your H1B(if possible) or take an infopass and get an expedited AP.
more...
morpheus
04-02 09:59 PM
Great fact sheet. It should list people like Andy Grove, Jerry Yang, and Sergey Brin - Hungarian, Chinese and Russian co-founders of Intel, Yahoo and Google - all immigrants.
Madhuri
04-09 11:30 AM
Thanks wellwishergc,
I need to clarify one thing though, my I-140 (which will be applied soon) is not pending for more than 365 days. Am I still eligible to file for 7th year?
Other thing is I also have a LC pending in PBEC (AD March 2005), but I am not with that employer and do not have any document/case number for that LC. Chances of getting these the that employer are bleak.
-Madhuri
I need to clarify one thing though, my I-140 (which will be applied soon) is not pending for more than 365 days. Am I still eligible to file for 7th year?
Other thing is I also have a LC pending in PBEC (AD March 2005), but I am not with that employer and do not have any document/case number for that LC. Chances of getting these the that employer are bleak.
-Madhuri
more...
thomachan72
06-11 06:10 PM
I strongly feel that CIR should be brought back and our amends included by our lobbying. Next time CIR is brought back, I am sure favorable amends for H1b GC applicants will be included/debated. I am only concerned about why there are no updates from the IV core group so far. Lets hope the lobbying firm that IV has hired is keeping track of the "behind the doors" discussions to make CIR more pleasing to those who voted against the closure of vote.
2010 (that#39;s what Fawn#39;s make-up
guyfromsg
07-18 08:34 PM
Hi,
I am in the same situation. I just got the tracking number from my lawyer for the fedex that he had sent on June 30 and he has sent it to Dallas . I live and work in California. I went through the Direct Filing press release and the USCIS link :
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=eb7b5cdc2c463110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fe529c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
and now I am confused as to whether my lawyer did the right thing or its ok to send the application to Dallas??
Anyone any thoughts???
Here is my opinion. I read in some posts that they will redirect the document internally to the correct processing center. The direct filing rule comes into effect on July 30th and they may be strict about filing center after that. As I said this is my opinion. Let me see if I can find the official answer in USCIS site.
I am in the same situation. I just got the tracking number from my lawyer for the fedex that he had sent on June 30 and he has sent it to Dallas . I live and work in California. I went through the Direct Filing press release and the USCIS link :
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=eb7b5cdc2c463110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fe529c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
and now I am confused as to whether my lawyer did the right thing or its ok to send the application to Dallas??
Anyone any thoughts???
Here is my opinion. I read in some posts that they will redirect the document internally to the correct processing center. The direct filing rule comes into effect on July 30th and they may be strict about filing center after that. As I said this is my opinion. Let me see if I can find the official answer in USCIS site.
more...
my2cents
08-04 03:53 PM
Not True
All dual intention like H1b/H4 are treated differently. For those AOS applicants where they also have H1b/H4 status ( Not necessarily VISA stamped) ..they need to be here when filed and if they leave after filing then neither I-485 or I-131 will get cancelled.
After approval, you can mail them.
I have known 2 person whose spouses came without problem.
Now , If you are F1 or B1 pure non immigrant VISA and you leave without it being approved then you are in problem.
All dual intention like H1b/H4 are treated differently. For those AOS applicants where they also have H1b/H4 status ( Not necessarily VISA stamped) ..they need to be here when filed and if they leave after filing then neither I-485 or I-131 will get cancelled.
After approval, you can mail them.
I have known 2 person whose spouses came without problem.
Now , If you are F1 or B1 pure non immigrant VISA and you leave without it being approved then you are in problem.
hair emo makeup games. Emo Haircuts
dollar500
04-10 06:23 PM
Moonlighting will be acceptable easily as long as it's on the code internist. Problem is some fellowships are so demanding that you wont be able to moonlight as an internist. If you can figure this out smoothly and yr employer agrees nothing is better. Good thought.
HI I am a physician (hospitalist) whose labor was under the catagory 'Internist' job code. The fellowship I am considering is open only to internist. I am also planning to moonlight as an internist while in fellowship. Would it be acceptable from the I485 point of view? Incidentally my I140 was approved more the 180 days ago.
HI I am a physician (hospitalist) whose labor was under the catagory 'Internist' job code. The fellowship I am considering is open only to internist. I am also planning to moonlight as an internist while in fellowship. Would it be acceptable from the I485 point of view? Incidentally my I140 was approved more the 180 days ago.
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
hot and type of make-up.
makemygc
07-18 12:12 PM
There's no need for you to be negative.
Obviously you have benefitted already from what's happened. Think about people who are stuck (just as you were up until recently) and want to 'try' to make things work for them too....
wish people were more understanding of others also. Why is it people forget what it was like for them when they were in same boat?
I edited my previous message as I do agree I sounded negative but that's not what I mean.
Some of my suggestions:-
1. Creating a petition and getting it signed by more than 10000 victims stuck in BEC and sending it to relevant people in congress and USCIS.
2. Doing a rally in NY, Sanjose etc.
3. Working closely with USCIS and IV core and see how we can improve the situation.
Obviously you have benefitted already from what's happened. Think about people who are stuck (just as you were up until recently) and want to 'try' to make things work for them too....
wish people were more understanding of others also. Why is it people forget what it was like for them when they were in same boat?
I edited my previous message as I do agree I sounded negative but that's not what I mean.
Some of my suggestions:-
1. Creating a petition and getting it signed by more than 10000 victims stuck in BEC and sending it to relevant people in congress and USCIS.
2. Doing a rally in NY, Sanjose etc.
3. Working closely with USCIS and IV core and see how we can improve the situation.
more...
house emo makeup look. Tyra Banks#39; Makeup Looks; Tyra Banks#39; Makeup Looks
ragz4u
03-15 11:05 AM
Ramanujam,
Over the last couple of weeks IV core committee members and QGA have had several meetings with important members of Senate and House. We have tried to educate the relevant folks about our situation.
It is premature to assume/speculate one way or other whether any pro-immigrant provisions will be removed/added. The next few days will provide a good idea of how things might unfold
There are a ton of amendments that are being introduced by various Judiciary Committee members. The committee has only reached Title 3 while Title 4 and 5 are the ones that most affect us
In the same vein, the Judiciary Committee is NOT the only place an amendment can be brought into the bill.
After the Judiciary committee, the bill will be brought to the floor. At that time too amendments can be brought in by Senators. Once the bill passes the senate, the bill will be discussed by the Joint Conference Committee that will negotiate and come to a common bill from both the House Version HR4437 and the senate version of it. Here too, pro-immigrant provisions can be added/removed
So in short, we will try our best to ensure that all our goals mentioned on the home page are achieved (hopefully :) ) and we will keep on working on it until the final bill gets passed by both the house and senate after the joint conference committee!
Over the last couple of weeks IV core committee members and QGA have had several meetings with important members of Senate and House. We have tried to educate the relevant folks about our situation.
It is premature to assume/speculate one way or other whether any pro-immigrant provisions will be removed/added. The next few days will provide a good idea of how things might unfold
There are a ton of amendments that are being introduced by various Judiciary Committee members. The committee has only reached Title 3 while Title 4 and 5 are the ones that most affect us
In the same vein, the Judiciary Committee is NOT the only place an amendment can be brought into the bill.
After the Judiciary committee, the bill will be brought to the floor. At that time too amendments can be brought in by Senators. Once the bill passes the senate, the bill will be discussed by the Joint Conference Committee that will negotiate and come to a common bill from both the House Version HR4437 and the senate version of it. Here too, pro-immigrant provisions can be added/removed
So in short, we will try our best to ensure that all our goals mentioned on the home page are achieved (hopefully :) ) and we will keep on working on it until the final bill gets passed by both the house and senate after the joint conference committee!
tattoo Related Emo Girls:
sanju_eb3
02-26 09:33 AM
If I were you, I would take start with something "less technical" in the IT field like testing. You can learn a tool or two (example: Mercury, Rational etc) and basic methodology about planning, executing and monitoring testing. You have your background in HR and can use your functional skills to add value to any HR enterprise implementation.
You can then move to more technical side of the IT fields with configuration of any of the major enterprise tools like others have suggested - Peoplesoft, SAP etc.
You can then move to more technical side of the IT fields with configuration of any of the major enterprise tools like others have suggested - Peoplesoft, SAP etc.
more...
pictures images makeup Cute Emo Girl
seetheavatar
10-15 03:33 PM
Don't worry guys.If you have received a mail saying that your GC is posted and if it is more than 30 days you can contact the customer service and create a service request.
You will get your card within 30 days.
If it was sent to a different address it would be returned to USCIS and you will be getting a mail saying that your GC was returned.
For this case also you have to create a service request and you will get your card within 30 days.
You will get your card within 30 days.
If it was sent to a different address it would be returned to USCIS and you will be getting a mail saying that your GC was returned.
For this case also you have to create a service request and you will get your card within 30 days.
dresses regularly emo makeup look.
meridiani.planum
04-06 02:34 AM
inline...
I got an offer from employer B for a consulting GIG. I would like to invoke AC-21.
>> Personal choice here. However, it proves that your intent was not correct. If you think you would be stuck for many years, may be you should - you know it better, because the hassle and risk is not worth the little extra money.
-- there is no issue with intent. He has stayed for 6 months with current employer. After 6 months the law itself allows him to change sponsoring employer, so where is the question of intent?
2) Should I let USCIS know that I am changing my employment?
>> You better do inform the USCIS of your intentions (including AC21) if you want to keep the H1 visa status active. Because if you had registered all your cases (present or old past receipt notices too) at USCIS website, you would have noticed that there are recent LUDs on the first H1/? that you entered the US. Had you known this you would not have asked this question ;-)
--what are you talking about? A LUD could mean anything from a system update to your previous employer finally cancelling your H1. What recent-LUDs-on-first-H1 are you talking about?
>> (Also remember that when you use EAD : presently it means loosing H1 permanently unless you have some time left from the 6 year limit),
--Why? If you have an approved I-140 you can file an H1 extension even if yuou are on EAD. It does require you to leave the US and return to 'activate' the H1 though.
4) I am not sure how big employer B is (not sure how many employees work for them)....does it matter? Should I be concerned if employer B is a small employer?
>> It should be good to check the employee base and financial position of the new employer. The USCIS may deny your H1 transfer and leave you in a tough spot. It may also affect the 485 decision as success of AC21 is also dependent upon this.
-- USCIS has clarified that abiity-to-pay has to only be proven by original sponsoror. Where does it say that financial position of new employer is important for success of AC-21?
Here's a link to, and info from the USCIS memo:
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/news/2005,0520-ac21.pdf
Question 7. Should service centers or district offices request proof of �ability to pay� from successor employers in I-140 portability cases, in other
words, from the new company/employer to which someone has
ported?
Answer: No. The relevant inquiry is whether the new position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the alien�s I-140 employment.
agree with the rest of your post.
I got an offer from employer B for a consulting GIG. I would like to invoke AC-21.
>> Personal choice here. However, it proves that your intent was not correct. If you think you would be stuck for many years, may be you should - you know it better, because the hassle and risk is not worth the little extra money.
-- there is no issue with intent. He has stayed for 6 months with current employer. After 6 months the law itself allows him to change sponsoring employer, so where is the question of intent?
2) Should I let USCIS know that I am changing my employment?
>> You better do inform the USCIS of your intentions (including AC21) if you want to keep the H1 visa status active. Because if you had registered all your cases (present or old past receipt notices too) at USCIS website, you would have noticed that there are recent LUDs on the first H1/? that you entered the US. Had you known this you would not have asked this question ;-)
--what are you talking about? A LUD could mean anything from a system update to your previous employer finally cancelling your H1. What recent-LUDs-on-first-H1 are you talking about?
>> (Also remember that when you use EAD : presently it means loosing H1 permanently unless you have some time left from the 6 year limit),
--Why? If you have an approved I-140 you can file an H1 extension even if yuou are on EAD. It does require you to leave the US and return to 'activate' the H1 though.
4) I am not sure how big employer B is (not sure how many employees work for them)....does it matter? Should I be concerned if employer B is a small employer?
>> It should be good to check the employee base and financial position of the new employer. The USCIS may deny your H1 transfer and leave you in a tough spot. It may also affect the 485 decision as success of AC21 is also dependent upon this.
-- USCIS has clarified that abiity-to-pay has to only be proven by original sponsoror. Where does it say that financial position of new employer is important for success of AC-21?
Here's a link to, and info from the USCIS memo:
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/news/2005,0520-ac21.pdf
Question 7. Should service centers or district offices request proof of �ability to pay� from successor employers in I-140 portability cases, in other
words, from the new company/employer to which someone has
ported?
Answer: No. The relevant inquiry is whether the new position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the alien�s I-140 employment.
agree with the rest of your post.
more...
makeup is wearing EMO make up,. singhsa3. 02-28 02:59 PM
jasmin45
08-06 10:16 AM
I just recived mail from embassy saying that there is no visa avilable for my case. When avilable they will call me for the interview again. Thank you ALL
Sorry to hear this news! As far as I understand the july fieasco and successive events did not effect consular processing especially for scheduled interviews. How did this happen? Well!
We Hope that the visa categories will be current in October and vias be allocated to you, when they open the FY 2008.
Sorry to hear this news! As far as I understand the july fieasco and successive events did not effect consular processing especially for scheduled interviews. How did this happen? Well!
We Hope that the visa categories will be current in October and vias be allocated to you, when they open the FY 2008.
girlfriend emo makeup designs. emo makeup
chanduv23
07-13 02:13 PM
Wear your company shirts/ your old company shirts, spouses can wear additional t shirts.
Business casual t shirts must also be fine.
Company's shirts will give excellent media attention.
If you are worried about present company, you may consider wearing shirt from previous company.
You can wear your school shirts also to show that you went to that school.
Carry an American flag.
Business casual t shirts must also be fine.
Company's shirts will give excellent media attention.
If you are worried about present company, you may consider wearing shirt from previous company.
You can wear your school shirts also to show that you went to that school.
Carry an American flag.
hairstyles WHATquot;S AN EMO? seeing a
sledge_hammer
05-14 05:57 PM
^^^^
baburob2
11-02 02:42 PM
As per my knowledge, GC thru employment is for future job position, i.e. Once your GC is approved you should do the job in that area.
Plz. correct if I am wrong.
My company has filed one of my Labor (stuck in DBEC) from MN, while I am working in Texas from Last five years.
I concur that "GC thru employment is for future job position, i.e. Once your GC is approved you should do the job in that area.". Hence your move is fine.
Plz. correct if I am wrong.
My company has filed one of my Labor (stuck in DBEC) from MN, while I am working in Texas from Last five years.
I concur that "GC thru employment is for future job position, i.e. Once your GC is approved you should do the job in that area.". Hence your move is fine.
gc_in_30_yrs
10-26 09:09 AM
i got my receipt number in 1 1/2 weeks time. i applied on 10/11/2006 and got the receipt number on 10/25/2006
No comments:
Post a Comment