dpp
10-25 07:28 PM
Hope this bill helps us !!!:confused:
http://www.immigration-law.com/
It has more harm than good. H1B fees increased too much. I hope they will remove this H1B part from the final bill. Anyway Bush is ready to veto this bill for sure.
http://www.immigration-law.com/
It has more harm than good. H1B fees increased too much. I hope they will remove this H1B part from the final bill. Anyway Bush is ready to veto this bill for sure.
wallpaper Fish Wallpapers 1; Fish
rsrikant
07-18 08:44 AM
my attorney sent it on jul 13th to NSC..
i am also in same situatiion with out receipt date. now i am worried on what to do for 485
i am also in same situatiion with out receipt date. now i am worried on what to do for 485
gcpool
08-16 03:45 PM
I have noticed that they have been given instructions not to give any information now due to the volume of calls HOWEVER if you keep trying you might get one person who is kind enough to answer your questions..
I tried 3 times (called with few days in between) and two time I faced pretty short replies with no help. But third time I got a very nice person who gave me more info. Among the few things I learnt were that they are still doing cases as of Aug 2006 and few random cases are being worked on dates after that. Details about I-140 will not be told unless you are the employer or the attorney. But you can ask about the status of your name check.
All the best
I tried 3 times (called with few days in between) and two time I faced pretty short replies with no help. But third time I got a very nice person who gave me more info. Among the few things I learnt were that they are still doing cases as of Aug 2006 and few random cases are being worked on dates after that. Details about I-140 will not be told unless you are the employer or the attorney. But you can ask about the status of your name check.
All the best
2011 moving fishes wallpaper. fish
Immi95
02-16 12:30 PM
Hello?
In Mid 2007, 7th year of H-1B tansfer & extension was filed, and was no problem as I had an approved ETA-750 with ex-employer, but it was expired soon as the sponsor�s (ex-employer) company was closed at the end of 2007.
The 7th year approval period was 12/11/2007 ~ 12/10/2008 with the current employer.
I filed another labor certification (ETA-9089) on 10/23/2007 which was sponsored by my current employer, and it has not been approved yet.
Using this ETA-9089 pending more than 365 days, I filed an I-129 extension for 8th year of H1B last November 2008, but INS sent "Request For additional Evidence Sent" letter which was saying to be provided �An evidence of pending / being processed for more than 365 days of labor certification or I-140 prior to 6 year expired of H-1B�. we just realized that a memo was posted regarding this on 05/30/2008.
As I don�t have this evidence... Please advise or recommend me...
In Mid 2007, 7th year of H-1B tansfer & extension was filed, and was no problem as I had an approved ETA-750 with ex-employer, but it was expired soon as the sponsor�s (ex-employer) company was closed at the end of 2007.
The 7th year approval period was 12/11/2007 ~ 12/10/2008 with the current employer.
I filed another labor certification (ETA-9089) on 10/23/2007 which was sponsored by my current employer, and it has not been approved yet.
Using this ETA-9089 pending more than 365 days, I filed an I-129 extension for 8th year of H1B last November 2008, but INS sent "Request For additional Evidence Sent" letter which was saying to be provided �An evidence of pending / being processed for more than 365 days of labor certification or I-140 prior to 6 year expired of H-1B�. we just realized that a memo was posted regarding this on 05/30/2008.
As I don�t have this evidence... Please advise or recommend me...
more...
pani_6
02-14 03:18 PM
We used to be in immi.com and murthy.com venting out how broken the immi process is and IV rose to provide direction and the lobbying effort admists incessant anti immigration forces.A new effort that take Guts to do ..that too being voulnteers!
Being a IV core member is a tiresome, thankless job...but still they continue to plough thro rocks..with meager funds and bunch of negative members..
Feb 15 will come and Go....we still need to work on getting our provisions into CIR...whether it passes or not this year..we still need our provisions to get into it..one cannot miss the window of oppurtunity...
Work will continue...be it Feb 15 or Aug 15..
Being a IV core member is a tiresome, thankless job...but still they continue to plough thro rocks..with meager funds and bunch of negative members..
Feb 15 will come and Go....we still need to work on getting our provisions into CIR...whether it passes or not this year..we still need our provisions to get into it..one cannot miss the window of oppurtunity...
Work will continue...be it Feb 15 or Aug 15..
moonrah
08-05 08:11 PM
Hi All,
I know cohen & grigsby was under DOL supervised recruitment for new PERM process. Is it still true? Does anybody know?
Thanks,
I know cohen & grigsby was under DOL supervised recruitment for new PERM process. Is it still true? Does anybody know?
Thanks,
more...
bibs
01-16 10:32 AM
I had applied EAD back in 2009.
I received my EAD which was valid from 06/02/2009 to 06/01/2010.
I had applied 485 back in August 6,2007.
So here are the questions:
1) Some of the instruction says, we should not pay for EAD application if we applied on or after 30 July 2007 though I applied in 2009 with application fee of $375.
Should I get back the above filling?
2) Why the EAD was issued for 1 year instead of 2 years for the first time?
3) If I apply now should I file with application fee? Because some instruction says that I donot have to send filing fee as this is a renewal.
4) Can I file electronically?
5) Should I file for EAD to Nebraska office where I filed 485 back in 2007?
Thanks in advance.
I received my EAD which was valid from 06/02/2009 to 06/01/2010.
I had applied 485 back in August 6,2007.
So here are the questions:
1) Some of the instruction says, we should not pay for EAD application if we applied on or after 30 July 2007 though I applied in 2009 with application fee of $375.
Should I get back the above filling?
2) Why the EAD was issued for 1 year instead of 2 years for the first time?
3) If I apply now should I file with application fee? Because some instruction says that I donot have to send filing fee as this is a renewal.
4) Can I file electronically?
5) Should I file for EAD to Nebraska office where I filed 485 back in 2007?
Thanks in advance.
2010 Underwater fish wallpaper
avisjk
06-14 10:43 AM
Since all categories are current as of july 1st, can i file for 485/EAD/AP even if my 140 is still pending. thanks.
more...
Macaca
05-19 07:30 AM
A New Reality in Washington, but Can It Last? (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/washington/19assess.html) By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) May 19, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Six months after Republicans lost control of Congress, President Bush is learning the rules of a game that, for six years, he seemed to have forgotten: the Capitol Hill edition of �Let�s Make a Deal.�
In the last eight days alone, talks involving cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking White House officials have produced two surprises: a major compromise with Democrats on trade and Thursday�s fragile bipartisan accord on immigration. The question now is whether the sudden burst of deal-making will extend from these easier targets to the most intractable issue in Washington: the war in Iraq.
It is still far from clear whether the Bush administration and Congressional Democrats can be flexible enough to reach an accommodation on war spending � and indeed, the Iraq talks stumbled on Friday. What is clear is that both Mr. Bush and his rivals are shying from the path of confrontation. Democrats, for the most part, are refraining from muscle-flexing, showers of subpoenas and other displays of new clout. And a White House hungry for legislative victories is working hard to negotiate a vastly changed political landscape.
�The president has become belatedly pragmatic,� said Ross Baker, an expert in presidential-Congressional relations at Rutgers University. �I think it took a while for him to recognize that the ground rules have changed, but he seems finally to have come around to the realization that he�s not working with a docile Congress of his own party, but with people who really have decided that they are going to challenge him.�
The White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, who is the president�s lead negotiator on the Iraq bill, conceded in an interview earlier this week that it had been difficult for the administration to get accustomed to not controlling the legislative agenda.
Yet despite �a fair amount of substantive tension� in the relationship with Democrats, Mr. Bolten said, the immigration and trade deals have left him feeling encouraged.
�We have some ways to go,� he said, �but there is a process of confidence building that accumulates over time.�
Maybe so, but after six years of being virtually ignored by the administration, many Democrats remain wary. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, complained on Friday that the Bush White House had �never been very interested in anything except the way they wanted to do business.� Mr. Dorgan said he was not impressed with the fact, given the change of party power, that they are talking.
�That gives credit for low expectations,� he said.
Others, less in the thick of things, sounded more upbeat. Leon E. Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said he had been concerned, once the Democrats took control of Congress, that �an awful lot of blood in the water� would prevent the parties from coming to terms on �low-hanging fruit� like immigration and trade.
In Mr. Panetta�s view, the talks are a good sign. �Whether it can go into bigger areas like the war remains to be seen,� he said. �But it clearly helps build at least a rapport that you absolutely need if you�re going to try to come to a deal.�
Mr. Bush, of course, is not the first president who was forced to come to grips with a new political reality after losing control of Congress. Mr. Clinton did just that after Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 1994. That loss created the political climate that enabled Mr. Clinton to make good on his promise to revamp the nation�s welfare system.
Likewise, the change in November has made it easier for Mr. Bush to pursue his trade agenda and his long-cherished goal of immigration overhaul.
In the trade deal, the administration�s unlikely partner was Representative Charles B. Rangel, the tough-talking Democrat from Harlem. The White House acceded to his demands for child labor and environmental protections in several pending trade pacts, a move that would have been unthinkable when Republicans controlled the House, because Mr. Rangel�s Republican predecessor as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill Thomas of California, would have blocked it.
On immigration, Mr. Bush�s position already seemed nearer that of Democrats than Republicans, and some in his own party are highly nervous about the deal. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, who was majority leader when Mr. Clinton was president, said Republicans would criticize the administration as giving away too much on immigration, just as Democrats criticized Mr. Clinton as giving away too much on welfare overhaul.
�But,� Mr. Lott said, �I would argue that the White House is coming to terms with the reality of the situation in Washington, and they don�t have any choice. We can all get into our partisan crouches and get nothing, or we can go through a process of responsible negotiations.�
Administration officials say both sides seem to be learning as they go. But Iraq is an area where Mr. Bush has been especially unwilling to yield. He has made clear he has little interest in sharing his power as commander in chief.
While Mr. Bush has been trying to strike a conciliatory tone � he said Thursday that he would accept benchmarks for the Iraqi government � the breakdown in talks on Friday was a reminder that Iraq is not immigration or trade, and the president will only go so far.
Some say the trade and immigration deals could actually work against compromise on Iraq. After cutting two big deals, Democrats and Republicans might not be inclined toward another one, for fear that they will look wishy-washy with their respective political bases.
On the other hand, one force pushing toward compromise is that neither side can afford to get blamed for holding back money from the troops. Even so, Mr. Panetta says it is too early to be optimistic.
�There�s some light at the end of the tunnel,� he said, ��but it could get dark real fast.�
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Six months after Republicans lost control of Congress, President Bush is learning the rules of a game that, for six years, he seemed to have forgotten: the Capitol Hill edition of �Let�s Make a Deal.�
In the last eight days alone, talks involving cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking White House officials have produced two surprises: a major compromise with Democrats on trade and Thursday�s fragile bipartisan accord on immigration. The question now is whether the sudden burst of deal-making will extend from these easier targets to the most intractable issue in Washington: the war in Iraq.
It is still far from clear whether the Bush administration and Congressional Democrats can be flexible enough to reach an accommodation on war spending � and indeed, the Iraq talks stumbled on Friday. What is clear is that both Mr. Bush and his rivals are shying from the path of confrontation. Democrats, for the most part, are refraining from muscle-flexing, showers of subpoenas and other displays of new clout. And a White House hungry for legislative victories is working hard to negotiate a vastly changed political landscape.
�The president has become belatedly pragmatic,� said Ross Baker, an expert in presidential-Congressional relations at Rutgers University. �I think it took a while for him to recognize that the ground rules have changed, but he seems finally to have come around to the realization that he�s not working with a docile Congress of his own party, but with people who really have decided that they are going to challenge him.�
The White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, who is the president�s lead negotiator on the Iraq bill, conceded in an interview earlier this week that it had been difficult for the administration to get accustomed to not controlling the legislative agenda.
Yet despite �a fair amount of substantive tension� in the relationship with Democrats, Mr. Bolten said, the immigration and trade deals have left him feeling encouraged.
�We have some ways to go,� he said, �but there is a process of confidence building that accumulates over time.�
Maybe so, but after six years of being virtually ignored by the administration, many Democrats remain wary. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, complained on Friday that the Bush White House had �never been very interested in anything except the way they wanted to do business.� Mr. Dorgan said he was not impressed with the fact, given the change of party power, that they are talking.
�That gives credit for low expectations,� he said.
Others, less in the thick of things, sounded more upbeat. Leon E. Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said he had been concerned, once the Democrats took control of Congress, that �an awful lot of blood in the water� would prevent the parties from coming to terms on �low-hanging fruit� like immigration and trade.
In Mr. Panetta�s view, the talks are a good sign. �Whether it can go into bigger areas like the war remains to be seen,� he said. �But it clearly helps build at least a rapport that you absolutely need if you�re going to try to come to a deal.�
Mr. Bush, of course, is not the first president who was forced to come to grips with a new political reality after losing control of Congress. Mr. Clinton did just that after Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 1994. That loss created the political climate that enabled Mr. Clinton to make good on his promise to revamp the nation�s welfare system.
Likewise, the change in November has made it easier for Mr. Bush to pursue his trade agenda and his long-cherished goal of immigration overhaul.
In the trade deal, the administration�s unlikely partner was Representative Charles B. Rangel, the tough-talking Democrat from Harlem. The White House acceded to his demands for child labor and environmental protections in several pending trade pacts, a move that would have been unthinkable when Republicans controlled the House, because Mr. Rangel�s Republican predecessor as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill Thomas of California, would have blocked it.
On immigration, Mr. Bush�s position already seemed nearer that of Democrats than Republicans, and some in his own party are highly nervous about the deal. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, who was majority leader when Mr. Clinton was president, said Republicans would criticize the administration as giving away too much on immigration, just as Democrats criticized Mr. Clinton as giving away too much on welfare overhaul.
�But,� Mr. Lott said, �I would argue that the White House is coming to terms with the reality of the situation in Washington, and they don�t have any choice. We can all get into our partisan crouches and get nothing, or we can go through a process of responsible negotiations.�
Administration officials say both sides seem to be learning as they go. But Iraq is an area where Mr. Bush has been especially unwilling to yield. He has made clear he has little interest in sharing his power as commander in chief.
While Mr. Bush has been trying to strike a conciliatory tone � he said Thursday that he would accept benchmarks for the Iraqi government � the breakdown in talks on Friday was a reminder that Iraq is not immigration or trade, and the president will only go so far.
Some say the trade and immigration deals could actually work against compromise on Iraq. After cutting two big deals, Democrats and Republicans might not be inclined toward another one, for fear that they will look wishy-washy with their respective political bases.
On the other hand, one force pushing toward compromise is that neither side can afford to get blamed for holding back money from the troops. Even so, Mr. Panetta says it is too early to be optimistic.
�There�s some light at the end of the tunnel,� he said, ��but it could get dark real fast.�
hair Various fishes are waintng for
xlxoel
07-23 01:46 PM
Quick question,
My case (I-140, I-485) is at Texas Service Center, because when I first applied I used to live in New Jersey and that was the service center I had to use.
I've been having a lot of trouble with Texas and California is working on case like mine a lot faster and I've been living here for the last 18 months.
Is there a way I can transfer my case to CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER?
How?
My case (I-140, I-485) is at Texas Service Center, because when I first applied I used to live in New Jersey and that was the service center I had to use.
I've been having a lot of trouble with Texas and California is working on case like mine a lot faster and I've been living here for the last 18 months.
Is there a way I can transfer my case to CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER?
How?
more...
pappu
04-13 11:27 AM
IV is planning to present a proposal for a funding opportunity. If you have an experience writing such proposals in the past, please contact us ASAP. Members in academic professions may be best suited for this help.
hot moving fishes wallpaper.
shaji_p_j
01-22 01:48 PM
I am working on my H1B and on I-140 approved Stage. At the same time I have applied for I-485 as Derivative applicant on my wife's application and also got the Advanace Parol.
If I use the AP (obtained based on wife's application) will my H1B got invalidated? My intention is keep my H1B and to avoid the H1B stamping.
Thanks
If I use the AP (obtained based on wife's application) will my H1B got invalidated? My intention is keep my H1B and to avoid the H1B stamping.
Thanks
more...
house Animal Fishes wallpaper
arch_118
06-23 07:41 PM
Is it possible to obtain a Greencard from L1B status? If yes, how long does this process typically take? My understanding is it is possible and definitely easier/shorter than being on H1?
tattoo wallpapers fish.
naushit
02-26 04:03 PM
If I have I140 approved and I have 3 year extention after my 6 years on H1B. Can I get H1B transferred to a new employer and then start my Labour all over again.
Yes, it can be done...and good news is you can preserve your Priority date too.
Yes, it can be done...and good news is you can preserve your Priority date too.
more...
pictures Koi Fish Live Wallpaper for
Lasantha
05-02 01:12 PM
LOL ! too late for what?
dresses 2010 Animal Fishes wallpaper
sapota
11-15 11:26 AM
on a lot of things like your priority date, country of birth, EB category. But bottomline is this : Its gonna take much longer than you think.
more...
makeup Sunburst Wallpaper, Fishes
pcs
07-15 08:25 AM
done
girlfriend wallpapers fish.
logiclife
01-26 12:35 PM
If you new H1 is approved with new employer (for 1 year or 3 years) and if the 140 is revoked AFTER your new H1 is approved, then it wont affect your H1 and it will be valid thru its term.
But if your old 140 is revoked, you will have to get new labor and new 140 going on before your new H1 expires.
talk to a lawyer to make sure though.
But if your old 140 is revoked, you will have to get new labor and new 140 going on before your new H1 expires.
talk to a lawyer to make sure though.
hairstyles 2010 Best Fish wallpapers
ras
02-02 10:45 PM
I have an Andvance Parole valid till Feb'10 end. However right now am in India and wish to stay back even after the AP expiry. In this scenario is it good to apply for renewal AP from India or is it advisable to return back to US and then apply for AP?
Does any one provide how much time it takes for the renewal if I apply for AP from India. Do I need to give the India address for delivery? I have some one in US who can recieve the AP by mail and can send it by post to India. Is this an advisable?
Does any one provide how much time it takes for the renewal if I apply for AP from India. Do I need to give the India address for delivery? I have some one in US who can recieve the AP by mail and can send it by post to India. Is this an advisable?
ramreddy
07-27 05:35 PM
I heard that if the current state u work in State A , is not the same as the one labor was filed - State B , then it can trigger an RFE.
My Q is HOW frequent is this possibility ? Has anyone experienced this ? Also my PD WILL Be current next month and I filed AR 11 about 10 days ago . Will that impact ? I read somewhere someone posted an article that change of address can tigger RFE at 485 Stage.But changed address in the same State B , I have been working in since 2008 ( I filed 485 in 2008 from State B ) . The change of address is only some 20 miles away from the previous one.
Any clues .. folks ? thanks
Rama
My Q is HOW frequent is this possibility ? Has anyone experienced this ? Also my PD WILL Be current next month and I filed AR 11 about 10 days ago . Will that impact ? I read somewhere someone posted an article that change of address can tigger RFE at 485 Stage.But changed address in the same State B , I have been working in since 2008 ( I filed 485 in 2008 from State B ) . The change of address is only some 20 miles away from the previous one.
Any clues .. folks ? thanks
Rama
ingenix
09-12 10:04 AM
We also need to raise our voice for the Out of Status stuff.
Most of the consultants have one or more pay stub missing etc. There needs to be a amendment that more than 6 months so called out of status can also adjust their status by paying some fine or something because
1. Most of the employee are ignorant about this
2. and most employers take advantage of the situation and they are the ones who should be accountable and not the employees.
Most of the consultants have one or more pay stub missing etc. There needs to be a amendment that more than 6 months so called out of status can also adjust their status by paying some fine or something because
1. Most of the employee are ignorant about this
2. and most employers take advantage of the situation and they are the ones who should be accountable and not the employees.
No comments:
Post a Comment