kartikiran
11-09 04:07 PM
Hey Krish2005, I see that you have a long wait before getting green card. I am not sure whether killing time by posting these would help you...:rolleyes:
Anyway, to answer your thoughts, it might be informative on a more relevant science based forum than an immigration forum.
Trying to see how it is relevant here?...:confused:
Maybe some of us might be aware on the importance of umbilical chord and cord blood. They are life savers as they contain stem cells which can be used to treat hematopoietic and genetic disorders.
Let me tie this to an important activity that happens in southern part of india (maybe its prevalent too in entire india - not sure though).
Whenever a baby is born, the umbilical chord is cut and a clip is put up in the baby's navel end with the umbilical chord part extending out. In a matter of few days the external portion will heal and fall off.
This is then taken to a goldsmith who in turn stuffs this into a small golden (or silver depending upon one's capacity) and seals them air tight (mind this air tight) using fire. this is then tied along with a thread and is generally worn around the hips of babies.
Maybe our ancestors knew that this part of tissue might help in healing some disorders for the babies. Who knows better than them. Many of us indians would have worn this without much aware of its importance.
Hope that I have submitted a informative post here.
Anyway, to answer your thoughts, it might be informative on a more relevant science based forum than an immigration forum.
Trying to see how it is relevant here?...:confused:
Maybe some of us might be aware on the importance of umbilical chord and cord blood. They are life savers as they contain stem cells which can be used to treat hematopoietic and genetic disorders.
Let me tie this to an important activity that happens in southern part of india (maybe its prevalent too in entire india - not sure though).
Whenever a baby is born, the umbilical chord is cut and a clip is put up in the baby's navel end with the umbilical chord part extending out. In a matter of few days the external portion will heal and fall off.
This is then taken to a goldsmith who in turn stuffs this into a small golden (or silver depending upon one's capacity) and seals them air tight (mind this air tight) using fire. this is then tied along with a thread and is generally worn around the hips of babies.
Maybe our ancestors knew that this part of tissue might help in healing some disorders for the babies. Who knows better than them. Many of us indians would have worn this without much aware of its importance.
Hope that I have submitted a informative post here.
wallpaper and Light Effect Tutorials
jr8rdt
11-12 05:32 PM
1) To invoke ac21 do you have to have EAD and ...
a) I-140 approved and 485 pending 180 days or more OR
b) I-140 pending and 485 pending 180 days or more
2)Assuming I-140 is approved and 485 has been pending for more than 180 days, has valid EAD and the person invokes ac21. What about if employer revoke the I-140 (which has been approved)...will it has effect on the GC app? or once I-140 is approved that's it. you are free...
Thanks
a) I-140 approved and 485 pending 180 days or more OR
b) I-140 pending and 485 pending 180 days or more
2)Assuming I-140 is approved and 485 has been pending for more than 180 days, has valid EAD and the person invokes ac21. What about if employer revoke the I-140 (which has been approved)...will it has effect on the GC app? or once I-140 is approved that's it. you are free...
Thanks
puvathoor
02-17 11:02 AM
"U" does not mean quota is done for FY 08...it may be "U" becoz for those categoreis, quarterly quota exhausted....USCIS normally does not grab the entire FY's quota at one time...they do it quarterly basis.
Even i think definitely before Oct itself, EB2 India moves ahead.
Pasted below is language from the Jan 2008 Visa Bulletin..
-------------------
D. INDIA EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE CUT-OFF DATE RETROGRESSION FOR JANUARY
It has been necessary to once again retrogress the India Employment Second preference cut-off date. This is a direct result of continued heavy applicant demand for numbers by CIS for adjustment of status cases despite the retrogression which occurred for December. It is likely that the annual limit for this category will be reached within the next few months, at which time the category would become “unavailable” for the remainder of fiscal year 2008.
-----------------
Based upon the above information in the Jan 2008 VB, I cannot digest that they use visa numbers on a quarterly basis.. I can appreciate visa numbers becoming available in later part of 2008 FY because of spillover from the other categories ( EB1) or ROW categories..
Also, Agree that credibility of this quote is to be questioned.. This is a very specific date / comment (I doubt State dept can predict April #s a month in advance of the actual date of release. Additionally, as discussed in many forums, because of the new no NC required if > 180 days, a lot of older PD applications in all categories will start getting visa # allocated. This is probably starting only in late Feb and pick up steam in March... I would think that state dept will wait and see how many visa # s are being allocated before making a drastic move on any visa categories..
I did some more searches on the Search engines and it did return out this statement across a few law firms' websites..
http://www.subhani-law.com/subhanilaw_subidx_news.aspx?main_idx=GAdmin2003551 43026
So the potential of a movement in the 2nd half because of spill over from Eb1 India / China to Eb2 India / China remains..
There is reason to be optimistic..
Even i think definitely before Oct itself, EB2 India moves ahead.
Pasted below is language from the Jan 2008 Visa Bulletin..
-------------------
D. INDIA EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE CUT-OFF DATE RETROGRESSION FOR JANUARY
It has been necessary to once again retrogress the India Employment Second preference cut-off date. This is a direct result of continued heavy applicant demand for numbers by CIS for adjustment of status cases despite the retrogression which occurred for December. It is likely that the annual limit for this category will be reached within the next few months, at which time the category would become “unavailable” for the remainder of fiscal year 2008.
-----------------
Based upon the above information in the Jan 2008 VB, I cannot digest that they use visa numbers on a quarterly basis.. I can appreciate visa numbers becoming available in later part of 2008 FY because of spillover from the other categories ( EB1) or ROW categories..
Also, Agree that credibility of this quote is to be questioned.. This is a very specific date / comment (I doubt State dept can predict April #s a month in advance of the actual date of release. Additionally, as discussed in many forums, because of the new no NC required if > 180 days, a lot of older PD applications in all categories will start getting visa # allocated. This is probably starting only in late Feb and pick up steam in March... I would think that state dept will wait and see how many visa # s are being allocated before making a drastic move on any visa categories..
I did some more searches on the Search engines and it did return out this statement across a few law firms' websites..
http://www.subhani-law.com/subhanilaw_subidx_news.aspx?main_idx=GAdmin2003551 43026
So the potential of a movement in the 2nd half because of spill over from Eb1 India / China to Eb2 India / China remains..
There is reason to be optimistic..
2011 other Photoshop Effects
go_guy123
05-02 09:34 AM
If you count the taxes these 150K legal immigrants would have paid if they were in US for a year it is more than 2.5 billion dollars.
There was a recent study claiming that 14 million illegal immigrants pay 1.5 billion dollars a year in taxes (read mostly sales taxes). And thus US should legalize these 14 million people to continue to get 1.5 billion dollars a year.
Now you can compare 150K people vs 14 million people and who pays more.
The study fails to tell that these illegals do not have insurance. So they use hospitals for free. They do not pay federal taxes because they do not have a valid documentation. Even if they are allowed to pay federal tax, many will be below poverty line.
The study did not envision an economic scenario for America if 14 million illegals are legalized. How many will claim unemployment, social security, medicare etc. I can bet the cost to government will be in billions with many zeroes after that. Someone should call the reporter and the pro illegals who created that study to answer these questions.
It is possible for undocumented to pay teh federal and state taxes. They generally usea fake ssn and once the payroll is run taxes get sent to IRS.
There was a recent study claiming that 14 million illegal immigrants pay 1.5 billion dollars a year in taxes (read mostly sales taxes). And thus US should legalize these 14 million people to continue to get 1.5 billion dollars a year.
Now you can compare 150K people vs 14 million people and who pays more.
The study fails to tell that these illegals do not have insurance. So they use hospitals for free. They do not pay federal taxes because they do not have a valid documentation. Even if they are allowed to pay federal tax, many will be below poverty line.
The study did not envision an economic scenario for America if 14 million illegals are legalized. How many will claim unemployment, social security, medicare etc. I can bet the cost to government will be in billions with many zeroes after that. Someone should call the reporter and the pro illegals who created that study to answer these questions.
It is possible for undocumented to pay teh federal and state taxes. They generally usea fake ssn and once the payroll is run taxes get sent to IRS.
more...
desi3933
05-14 01:33 PM
H-1B is approved from Oct/1/2009. Currently I should be on L-1B. As per this article, I think I can travel without jeopardizing my future status. They call it the 'Hernandez letter'. Is this true?
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_cosapp.html
Thanks..
Well, you didn't mention in your original post that COS date is 01/10/2009 and I assumed that COS date was date of approval.
In this case, yes your H1 COS is approved with deferred change of status date of Oct 1st. And Hernandez Letter does cover such scenario.
However, please keep this mind (mentioned in that link)
This analysis was provided by the USCIS in the form of letter guidance. Such guidance does not carry the binding force of law or regulation and generally is given less weight than even a USCIS policy memo.
Since when you come back you will have different I-94 number as compare to I-94 number on COS approval letter. This can cause explanation/issues down the line. Please consult your attorney and have professional advice.
Hernandez Letter does not have binding force of law. This is something difficult to ignore for me. But, that's just me.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_cosapp.html
Thanks..
Well, you didn't mention in your original post that COS date is 01/10/2009 and I assumed that COS date was date of approval.
In this case, yes your H1 COS is approved with deferred change of status date of Oct 1st. And Hernandez Letter does cover such scenario.
However, please keep this mind (mentioned in that link)
This analysis was provided by the USCIS in the form of letter guidance. Such guidance does not carry the binding force of law or regulation and generally is given less weight than even a USCIS policy memo.
Since when you come back you will have different I-94 number as compare to I-94 number on COS approval letter. This can cause explanation/issues down the line. Please consult your attorney and have professional advice.
Hernandez Letter does not have binding force of law. This is something difficult to ignore for me. But, that's just me.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.
fromnaija
11-30 11:19 AM
I don't think you are correct. Portability applies after 6 months of I140 approval. But you can not use AC21 for job profile / labor zone change. So, I don't recommend you changing job title.
You are wrong! Portability applies after 485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
You are wrong! Portability applies after 485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
Be_Pragmatic
06-20 12:57 PM
Guys: I have invoked my AC21 and am a consultant PM though my LC mentions "Programmer/Analyst". I came to this country because it is a land of opportunity and have been in the US for over 9 years now. I can't let this stupid AC21 provisions of "Same or Similar occupation" scepter of fear stop me from moving forward.
I'm also looking for a Full-time job as a Manager and if I get it I intend on taking it in a heart-beat without worrying about the consequences. Hey, it's not like I'm doing something illegal but merely exercising my due growth in my career. So, I'm moving on and if something bad were to happen like a NOID or a RFE, I'm ready to pack my bags back home with a satisfaction that I was atleast in the driver's seat.
My 2 cents but please do what is right for you.
I'm also looking for a Full-time job as a Manager and if I get it I intend on taking it in a heart-beat without worrying about the consequences. Hey, it's not like I'm doing something illegal but merely exercising my due growth in my career. So, I'm moving on and if something bad were to happen like a NOID or a RFE, I'm ready to pack my bags back home with a satisfaction that I was atleast in the driver's seat.
My 2 cents but please do what is right for you.
2010 A Cool Lighting Effect In
kevinkris
11-17 02:12 PM
Since you applied for H1 extension it means that you are out of parolee status
and on H1 again.
Get visa stamping next time when you go for home country and come on H1 instead of using AP.
Use AP only if GC is approved when you are outside of country..
I think it's little risk if AP is approved and you are outside of country and wants to use it. They prohibit sending AP on postal mail.
All,
Any help in answering my queries is appreciated.
Thanks
and on H1 again.
Get visa stamping next time when you go for home country and come on H1 instead of using AP.
Use AP only if GC is approved when you are outside of country..
I think it's little risk if AP is approved and you are outside of country and wants to use it. They prohibit sending AP on postal mail.
All,
Any help in answering my queries is appreciated.
Thanks
more...
RamBharose
03-13 06:34 PM
hey kris
i really wanted to know if it was illegla before reporting someone, you can refer to jaylenos reply where he quoted my previous post and you will know my real issue is with people that do fraud.
And i am not that stupid to write in a forum like this accepting that i am doing a fraud ehn i can be tracked.
I wasnt sure and i didnt know how to go about it.
try to follow law in its technicality and spirit. A lot of us may face delay in their app processing for uscis to figure out fraudsters among us. We should keep our program defensible not only in the court of law but also in the court of (american) public opinion.
i really wanted to know if it was illegla before reporting someone, you can refer to jaylenos reply where he quoted my previous post and you will know my real issue is with people that do fraud.
And i am not that stupid to write in a forum like this accepting that i am doing a fraud ehn i can be tracked.
I wasnt sure and i didnt know how to go about it.
try to follow law in its technicality and spirit. A lot of us may face delay in their app processing for uscis to figure out fraudsters among us. We should keep our program defensible not only in the court of law but also in the court of (american) public opinion.
hair Photoshop Effects: Wedding
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.
more...
mallu
06-07 04:09 PM
.
hot fire-lines-tutorial
desitechie
07-14 08:43 PM
One should be good enough.
more...
house This tutorial is also using a
LostInGCProcess
09-04 11:07 AM
I beg to disagree on this thought: If you are on H1B until Dec 2009, you will have to file H1B Extention for 7th Year (I am guessing you are in your second h1B renewal). For any reason if you get denial for I-485, your H1B extention will also be cancelled, remember extention was given to you on the basis of pending I-485 (GC).
so after DEC 2009 , it's the same wheather you are on EAD or H1B Extention.
I think in the above scenario, they do not invalidate your H1. You can continue till the end-date on the H1, even though it was approved based on pending I-485. I suggest you consult an attorney on this specific scenario.
so after DEC 2009 , it's the same wheather you are on EAD or H1B Extention.
I think in the above scenario, they do not invalidate your H1. You can continue till the end-date on the H1, even though it was approved based on pending I-485. I suggest you consult an attorney on this specific scenario.
tattoo best photoshop photo effects
like_watching_paint_dry
08-23 11:04 AM
All that has changed lately. Quite a few people have gotten off easy some years ago but NSC and even other service centers has been enforcing EB2 requirements without mercy these days. A lot of those 3 year degree types are getting I-140 denials, especially those who got greedy and applied in EB2. I've even read about a few cases of denials in EB3 for these people. So dont worry too much about those kinds of people eating our lunch going forward. They will most likely be looking for good deals on their return tickets.
more...
pictures Photoshop Tutorials
TeddyKoochu
01-06 09:11 AM
Please advise if 5.5+ years of experience and an Advanced degree in Electronics would qualify me for porting me from EB2 to EB1. I have been waiting to file for my I-140 over an year now but things aren't looking anywhere near to it.
So just wanted to understand if this was even legally possible.
Even I have a very similar question. I have bachelors in engineering from a prominent college in India with almost 10 Years of work experience in IT. My EB2 I140 is approved but I have not been able to apply for I485 as I missed the July 07 window. Please advise if there is a possibility that I can apply for EB1-A. I understand that EB1-B requires a PhD. and EB1-C requires the current / future job to have a global /mnc managerial profile so Iam not eligible for that, I do have managerial experienece from my previous job / positions in India. Please advice if EB1-A also mandates a research profile or can professionals not having a research background also apply. I believe that EB1-A is a self application not a company application. Really appreciate some valued advice.
So just wanted to understand if this was even legally possible.
Even I have a very similar question. I have bachelors in engineering from a prominent college in India with almost 10 Years of work experience in IT. My EB2 I140 is approved but I have not been able to apply for I485 as I missed the July 07 window. Please advise if there is a possibility that I can apply for EB1-A. I understand that EB1-B requires a PhD. and EB1-C requires the current / future job to have a global /mnc managerial profile so Iam not eligible for that, I do have managerial experienece from my previous job / positions in India. Please advice if EB1-A also mandates a research profile or can professionals not having a research background also apply. I believe that EB1-A is a self application not a company application. Really appreciate some valued advice.
dresses Photoshop Text Effects
sayantan76
04-21 02:15 PM
Hi,
I am working in US on L1 and my company would start my green card filling in next few months.
I also have valid H1B pettion stamped and can switch to H1B which would mean that I can work freely here at US.
But many of my friends told me that green card processing is faster on L1.
I am not able to make decision whether I should continue working on L1 or change my status to H1 to get better hike and more opportunity.
Pls can anyone tell me which would be wise choice. Is green card processing for L1 visa is faster?
Thanks in advance.
~Greeta
depends on whether you are on L1B or L1A. On L1A - i have seen many GCs getting approved (from 140 filing to GC in hand) in 6 months or less.
of course - your lawyer and/or employer needs to ascertain whether your role here and also in the country where you were employed by same employer qualifies you for EB1C filing or not.......
Of course, this is not legal advice but only anecdotal experience
I am working in US on L1 and my company would start my green card filling in next few months.
I also have valid H1B pettion stamped and can switch to H1B which would mean that I can work freely here at US.
But many of my friends told me that green card processing is faster on L1.
I am not able to make decision whether I should continue working on L1 or change my status to H1 to get better hike and more opportunity.
Pls can anyone tell me which would be wise choice. Is green card processing for L1 visa is faster?
Thanks in advance.
~Greeta
depends on whether you are on L1B or L1A. On L1A - i have seen many GCs getting approved (from 140 filing to GC in hand) in 6 months or less.
of course - your lawyer and/or employer needs to ascertain whether your role here and also in the country where you were employed by same employer qualifies you for EB1C filing or not.......
Of course, this is not legal advice but only anecdotal experience
more...
makeup photoshop tutorial
WeldonSprings
02-25 03:01 PM
USCIS can pre-adjudicate a case, even when visa numbers are not available. This means that USCIS processes all the application, but just waits for a visa number to finalize it.
The processing date listed is the received date of the oldest case that they have not adjudicated or pre-adjudicated yet (maybe due to some problem). It does not mean that cases filed after April 2007 are or will not be adjudicated.
The processing date listed is the received date of the oldest case that they have not adjudicated or pre-adjudicated yet (maybe due to some problem). It does not mean that cases filed after April 2007 are or will not be adjudicated.
girlfriend 25 Photoshop Tutorials for
Azzuri
12-03 07:05 AM
Kirupa Hero one is awsome. talents !
hairstyles Effect in Photoshop
bfadlia
02-21 12:11 PM
https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/ptimes.jsp
fromnaija
08-18 04:41 PM
If she is here on H4 and while she was here her H1B got approved then there is no problem. As H1B is not VISA and its intent to hire. Infact if she wanted to to Join work on H1B, she will need to apply status change application for H4 to H1B.
No, not correct. Since she got a new I-94 her status changed to H1 w.e.f October 1, 2008.
However, because she did not work she is currently out of status. She will have to change her status back to H4 either by going out of country and re-entering with H4 visa or filing I-539.
No, not correct. Since she got a new I-94 her status changed to H1 w.e.f October 1, 2008.
However, because she did not work she is currently out of status. She will have to change her status back to H4 either by going out of country and re-entering with H4 visa or filing I-539.
dipsangel
07-20 09:40 PM
Guys,
I have talked to my lawyer. I am also the victim of the same mistake. My lawyer has filed G-325 for me and my wife instead of G-325 A.
But my lawyer said that his firm has been filing G-325 for quite a while and had no issues with it.
I hope it should not be an issue. The content on both forms is exactly same.
Lets wait and watch.
I have talked to my lawyer. I am also the victim of the same mistake. My lawyer has filed G-325 for me and my wife instead of G-325 A.
But my lawyer said that his firm has been filing G-325 for quite a while and had no issues with it.
I hope it should not be an issue. The content on both forms is exactly same.
Lets wait and watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment