immiguy
07-20 05:03 PM
her priority date is march 2005 .and they filed for AoS on july 2nd.Her due date is november of this year. I am guessingt hat their 485 will not be approved november of this year.So, they can bring the child on h4 into the country. but then if their 485 gets approved in a year of 18 months-- what happens to the child? How does the child apply ?family based? in that case, the child will ahve to go out of the country for a long time, till the GC is approved- right?
wallpaper cavs wallpaper. chicago bulls
qualified_trash
12-01 05:47 PM
You cannot apply the extension for 3yrs with new employer as your labor and i140 are tied to old employer.
this info is incorrect. from a murthy chat transcript...... available at :
http://www.murthy.com/chatlogs/ch102306_P.html
Chat User : I have used 6 years of my H1B and have got extension for 3 more years. Can I change employers based on a 7th-year approval? Is it legal to do so? Thank you very much for advice.
Attorney Murthy : After one has an I-140 petition approved in her/his name, s/he is allowed to file for a new 3-year H1B extension with a new or different employer based on the I-140 petition approval with another employer. Then, during the 3-year H1B timeframe, the person could potentially start a new PERM/LC process with the new employer and, thereafter, rely on the new filing for future H1B extensions, in case the earlier employer cancels or revokes the earlier LC or I-140 petition.
this info is incorrect. from a murthy chat transcript...... available at :
http://www.murthy.com/chatlogs/ch102306_P.html
Chat User : I have used 6 years of my H1B and have got extension for 3 more years. Can I change employers based on a 7th-year approval? Is it legal to do so? Thank you very much for advice.
Attorney Murthy : After one has an I-140 petition approved in her/his name, s/he is allowed to file for a new 3-year H1B extension with a new or different employer based on the I-140 petition approval with another employer. Then, during the 3-year H1B timeframe, the person could potentially start a new PERM/LC process with the new employer and, thereafter, rely on the new filing for future H1B extensions, in case the earlier employer cancels or revokes the earlier LC or I-140 petition.
sabr
09-18 04:44 PM
But if I get out of US and get back with H1b stamping will then I can start again with my current company as H1b while I wil work with EAD for another company full time?
2011 chicago bulls wallpaper 2010.
DDash
04-06 03:43 PM
lazycis, jhaalaa, meridiani - Thanks for your inputs...you guys rock. :cool:
I believe Jhaalaa trying to caution me not to take chances and move to another employer, which could potentially cause RFE to my case. If so, thanks for you concern.
Meridiani thanks for the doc. I will read through it.
One more question, when I first filed my LC, I made x dollars, then I got a promotion and now making x+10K. When I move to a new employer, should I make x dollars? or x+10K? or is it okay to make x-10K? :confused:
I believe Jhaalaa trying to caution me not to take chances and move to another employer, which could potentially cause RFE to my case. If so, thanks for you concern.
Meridiani thanks for the doc. I will read through it.
One more question, when I first filed my LC, I made x dollars, then I got a promotion and now making x+10K. When I move to a new employer, should I make x dollars? or x+10K? or is it okay to make x-10K? :confused:
more...
ItIsNotFunny
09-09 04:20 PM
While on EAD, what type of entity (LLC, S Corp, C Corp) is the best one?
S Corporation. For detailed information visit LegalZoom.com. Make sure you just get information from there, don't go through them.
S Corporation. For detailed information visit LegalZoom.com. Make sure you just get information from there, don't go through them.
pgc10
02-03 07:18 PM
The AC21 requires you to have the new employer sign the AC21. What if the employer refuses to sign..??
Also does anyone have the exact wording they sent to USCIS with the AC21 letter
There is no standard legal forms to file for AC21. So, I don't think employer needs to sign anything unless you were talking about the offer letter (which would obviously be signed by both employer and employee).
Also does anyone have the exact wording they sent to USCIS with the AC21 letter
There is no standard legal forms to file for AC21. So, I don't think employer needs to sign anything unless you were talking about the offer letter (which would obviously be signed by both employer and employee).
more...
gc_on_demand
11-20 12:07 PM
This is just believe and what I think is something will be good for EB community. Specially those who has MS or Higer degree from USA. It can be tough for employee of small consulting companies. But that is Reform.
Ultimately they will hike H1b quota with some tight regulations so who ever is genuine can use it.
I know some people are saying that CIS wont be able to process all app and we have to suffer from Illegal people's filling. but if they add , recapture some visa for us in their CIR bill then dates will be current for us for some 1-2 years for sure and we can go to CP route and get green card thing done. I am 100 % sure that illegal people will not go to CP route. and CP route is very quick when dates are current.
only one thing I see if CIR passes.. Lawers.. they will be busy with illegal people and will not look at us because I am sure their fees will be higher than our straight cases and they want it desparetly than us. so lawer may not give attention to your case..
Ultimately they will hike H1b quota with some tight regulations so who ever is genuine can use it.
I know some people are saying that CIS wont be able to process all app and we have to suffer from Illegal people's filling. but if they add , recapture some visa for us in their CIR bill then dates will be current for us for some 1-2 years for sure and we can go to CP route and get green card thing done. I am 100 % sure that illegal people will not go to CP route. and CP route is very quick when dates are current.
only one thing I see if CIR passes.. Lawers.. they will be busy with illegal people and will not look at us because I am sure their fees will be higher than our straight cases and they want it desparetly than us. so lawer may not give attention to your case..
2010 chicago bulls wallpaper 2010.
swissgear
06-24 11:15 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325412638269010.html#a rticleTabs%3Darticle
Date : June 23 2010
By MICHAEL HOWARD SAUL
Mayor Michael Bloomberg will launch Thursday a coalition of mayors and business leaders to advocate for an overhaul of the nation's immigration policy, including legalizing undocumented immigrants and more strictly fining businesses that hire illegal workers.
"Our immigration policy is national suicide," Mr. Bloomberg said at a forum in Midtown Wednesday. "We educate the best and the brightest and then we don't give them a green card—we want people to create jobs but we won't let entrepreneurs from around the world come here."
During his latest inaugural address, Mr. Bloomberg vowed to push to rework the nation's immigration laws in the same way that he waged battle against illegal guns. This effort will be a cornerstone of the mayor's third-term agenda, aides said.
The coalition, the Partnership for a New American Economy, supports developing a secure system for employers to verify employment eligibility and strict penalties for businesses that fail to comply. The group wants to increase opportunities for immigrants to enter the workforce and for foreign students to stay in the country.
The group will advocate for securing the nation's borders and beefing up enforcement to prevent illegal immigration. The coalition supports establishing a legal path for the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the country now.
To effect decision-making in Washington, the group will issue research reports on the economic impact of immigration, poll public opinion, sponsor forums and potentially launch a media campaign. Mr. Bloomberg, a multibillionaire, is expected to provide financial support for the group's activities, as he has with his gun group.
One City Hall official said the coalition will try to focus on immigration as a "dollar and cent issue," advocating that open borders help keep the U.S. more competitive.
President Obama has pledged to champion changes to federal immigration policy, but this spring said lawmakers "may not have an appetite" for a grueling debate on immigration this year.
In addition to Mr. Bloomberg, the co-chairs include Mayor Phil Gordon of Phoenix; Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles; Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia; Mayor Julian Castro of San Antonio; Mark Hurd, CEO of Hewlett-Packard; Robert Iger, CEO of the Walt Disney Co.; J.W. Marriott Jr., CEO of Marriott International; Jim McNerney Jr., CEO of Boeing; and Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp., which owns The Wall Street Journal.
Date : June 23 2010
By MICHAEL HOWARD SAUL
Mayor Michael Bloomberg will launch Thursday a coalition of mayors and business leaders to advocate for an overhaul of the nation's immigration policy, including legalizing undocumented immigrants and more strictly fining businesses that hire illegal workers.
"Our immigration policy is national suicide," Mr. Bloomberg said at a forum in Midtown Wednesday. "We educate the best and the brightest and then we don't give them a green card—we want people to create jobs but we won't let entrepreneurs from around the world come here."
During his latest inaugural address, Mr. Bloomberg vowed to push to rework the nation's immigration laws in the same way that he waged battle against illegal guns. This effort will be a cornerstone of the mayor's third-term agenda, aides said.
The coalition, the Partnership for a New American Economy, supports developing a secure system for employers to verify employment eligibility and strict penalties for businesses that fail to comply. The group wants to increase opportunities for immigrants to enter the workforce and for foreign students to stay in the country.
The group will advocate for securing the nation's borders and beefing up enforcement to prevent illegal immigration. The coalition supports establishing a legal path for the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the country now.
To effect decision-making in Washington, the group will issue research reports on the economic impact of immigration, poll public opinion, sponsor forums and potentially launch a media campaign. Mr. Bloomberg, a multibillionaire, is expected to provide financial support for the group's activities, as he has with his gun group.
One City Hall official said the coalition will try to focus on immigration as a "dollar and cent issue," advocating that open borders help keep the U.S. more competitive.
President Obama has pledged to champion changes to federal immigration policy, but this spring said lawmakers "may not have an appetite" for a grueling debate on immigration this year.
In addition to Mr. Bloomberg, the co-chairs include Mayor Phil Gordon of Phoenix; Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles; Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia; Mayor Julian Castro of San Antonio; Mark Hurd, CEO of Hewlett-Packard; Robert Iger, CEO of the Walt Disney Co.; J.W. Marriott Jr., CEO of Marriott International; Jim McNerney Jr., CEO of Boeing; and Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp., which owns The Wall Street Journal.
more...
dontcareaboutGC
03-19 11:24 AM
Ignore this if this is a repost!
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
hair chicago bulls wallpaper. 2010
IAF
02-01 08:12 AM
Congratulations!
more...
vkrishn
10-13 10:02 PM
I went in shorts/t-shirt for my H-1 renewal in chennai this jan 08. They don't really care...
I/O asked me what do i do in my company... Gave her the response.
she said "sounds interesting and fun".. thats it... Hardly 2 mins. For most of the guys who live in the u.s and going to india for a vacation you should be if you dress decent...
Don't worry...
Just answer the question I/O ask you...
There were lots folks from Infosys, TCS with full tie and formals and sweating.
I/O asked me what do i do in my company... Gave her the response.
she said "sounds interesting and fun".. thats it... Hardly 2 mins. For most of the guys who live in the u.s and going to india for a vacation you should be if you dress decent...
Don't worry...
Just answer the question I/O ask you...
There were lots folks from Infosys, TCS with full tie and formals and sweating.
hot NBA Chicago Bulls 2008-09
anjans
04-29 06:21 PM
Nice article here. It also compares the experience on how folks did once they went back. The needle is surely moving away from USA.
America is bleeding competitiveness | VentureBeat (http://venturebeat.com/2011/04/28/brain-drain-or-brain-circulation-america-is-bleeding-competitiveness/)
America is bleeding competitiveness | VentureBeat (http://venturebeat.com/2011/04/28/brain-drain-or-brain-circulation-america-is-bleeding-competitiveness/)
more...
house chicago bulls wallpaper.
waitnwatch
05-30 12:29 PM
This may already have been discussed but does everyone realize that the merit based system will remove backlogs by the backdoor. There will be no backlogs because you have to apply every year. And if by chance you reach the 6th year on H1-B and fail to get past the merit line for that year you have to leave. If this is not scary what is?
I would like to hear everyone's opinion on this.
I would like to hear everyone's opinion on this.
tattoo chicago bulls logo wallpaper.
ndbhatt
01-12 12:54 PM
Get a notarized copy of your passport from Indian Consulate and send it with a letter explaining legalities associated with it.
more...
pictures Chicago Bulls wallpaper(44)
permfiling
12-15 02:19 PM
I am the same boat. My wife got her card wheras I got a response to the SR we raised that my card was sent the same day as my 485 approval notice and it might been lost in mail. I was asked to file I-90. I called customer service several times and talked to 2nd level IO and all suggested to file I-90. I took infopass but gave a shot again by talking to 2nd level IO who went over my case and said that my card was never created so she raised a SR.
My previous SR was raised by officer at the local uscis office who mentioned non delivery of PR cards which i don't think is the correct request. Now I have to pray and hope they create the card or have to file I-90
My previous SR was raised by officer at the local uscis office who mentioned non delivery of PR cards which i don't think is the correct request. Now I have to pray and hope they create the card or have to file I-90
dresses chicago bulls wallpaper logo.
ChainReaction
04-18 07:09 AM
www.immigration-law.com
04/18/2006: Bi-Specialization and Reshaping Service Centers Processing Times Report
The bi-specialization initiative that went into effect on April 1, 2006 is expected to bring about the changes in the Service Centers processing times report. The latest reports have already reported the following two changes in I-140 petition processing times report:
California Service Center ceased reporting I-140 processing times
Nebraska Service Center I-140 petition processing times have jumped remarkably since the April 10, 2006 report as follows:
04/10/2006 Report 04/15/2006 Report
EB-1A 10/01/2005 03/01/2006
EB-1B 11/12/2005 03/01/2006
EB-1C 12/17/2005 03/15/2006
EB-2 12/10/2005 12/15/2005
NIW 12/10/2005 03/15/2006
EB-3 10/16/2005 02/15/2006
EB-3EW 01/15/2006 03/15/2006
Schedule A 12/17/2005 02/01/2006
Texas Service Center I-140 petition processing times was already January 2006 in April 10, 2006 Report. It is likely that TSC I-140 processing times may also reveal some changes in the next report.
We will keep watching the development and effect of the bi-specialization program. The next review will focus on EB-485 processing patterns in these Service Centers. Please stay tuned to this web site.
Speedy processing times will help some of the recent PERM application filers whose H-1B approaches the six-year limit and who cannot apply for extension of 7th-year extension of H-1B for failure to prove 365 days pending labor certification before reaching H-1B six year limit. Since the PERM applications are nowadays adjudicated in about three months and I-140 petition adjudication takes between two months and three months, they will be able to apply for three-year increment H-1B extension if their visa numbers are retrogressed. Late starters of PERM applications should consider two options to extend their H-1B extension beyond six years while they wait for the visa numbers: One is overseas trips and recapture of H-1B times abroad. The second is prompt processing of I-140 petitions and filing of three-year increment H-1B extensions.
04/18/2006: Bi-Specialization and Reshaping Service Centers Processing Times Report
The bi-specialization initiative that went into effect on April 1, 2006 is expected to bring about the changes in the Service Centers processing times report. The latest reports have already reported the following two changes in I-140 petition processing times report:
California Service Center ceased reporting I-140 processing times
Nebraska Service Center I-140 petition processing times have jumped remarkably since the April 10, 2006 report as follows:
04/10/2006 Report 04/15/2006 Report
EB-1A 10/01/2005 03/01/2006
EB-1B 11/12/2005 03/01/2006
EB-1C 12/17/2005 03/15/2006
EB-2 12/10/2005 12/15/2005
NIW 12/10/2005 03/15/2006
EB-3 10/16/2005 02/15/2006
EB-3EW 01/15/2006 03/15/2006
Schedule A 12/17/2005 02/01/2006
Texas Service Center I-140 petition processing times was already January 2006 in April 10, 2006 Report. It is likely that TSC I-140 processing times may also reveal some changes in the next report.
We will keep watching the development and effect of the bi-specialization program. The next review will focus on EB-485 processing patterns in these Service Centers. Please stay tuned to this web site.
Speedy processing times will help some of the recent PERM application filers whose H-1B approaches the six-year limit and who cannot apply for extension of 7th-year extension of H-1B for failure to prove 365 days pending labor certification before reaching H-1B six year limit. Since the PERM applications are nowadays adjudicated in about three months and I-140 petition adjudication takes between two months and three months, they will be able to apply for three-year increment H-1B extension if their visa numbers are retrogressed. Late starters of PERM applications should consider two options to extend their H-1B extension beyond six years while they wait for the visa numbers: One is overseas trips and recapture of H-1B times abroad. The second is prompt processing of I-140 petitions and filing of three-year increment H-1B extensions.
more...
makeup chicago bulls wallpaper 2010.
invincibleasian
02-20 06:34 PM
I used the data from this webite to apply for FOIA for I-140
girlfriend chicago bulls wallpaper.
Lucky7
12-04 08:24 AM
I am a Commercial/Industrial Architect and have allready had to turn down 2 jobs this year making double what i make here in hicksville Fresno CA due to the fact that i do not have a green card.
As far as the investor visa,i have looked into this too with my attorney and i am not elligible,even though i have the funds,due to the fact that my previous attorney did not file my papers on time in 2000 and therfore had to refile under 245i in 2001 and i am paying the price along with 30 other clients of the crooked attorney who ran away to another state.
My earnings this yr were above your guys fugures but Uncle Sam takes a very large chunk due to being single,no real estate in my name and no tax write offs.
As far as the investor visa,i have looked into this too with my attorney and i am not elligible,even though i have the funds,due to the fact that my previous attorney did not file my papers on time in 2000 and therfore had to refile under 245i in 2001 and i am paying the price along with 30 other clients of the crooked attorney who ran away to another state.
My earnings this yr were above your guys fugures but Uncle Sam takes a very large chunk due to being single,no real estate in my name and no tax write offs.
hairstyles CHICAGO BULLS- TIED FOR THE #1
fasterthanlight�
08-23 05:25 PM
HOly old thread batman!!!
abhijitp
01-25 01:35 PM
Volunteers all over the country are helping this effort outside of a local train station in SF Bay area, and members who live within 2 miles of the train station don't even read their mails!
Thanks Janislal and Kicca.
Together, we will make the admin fixes HAPPEN!
Thanks Janislal and Kicca.
Together, we will make the admin fixes HAPPEN!
sury
11-07 10:26 AM
If EB2 PD is 1 APR 2004 then what does the ProcessingTimeFrame Date(August 25, 2006) mean for I-485 in Texas Service Center.
Can anyone clarify. Guys exuse my Ignorance...I just want to know the rule
Can anyone clarify. Guys exuse my Ignorance...I just want to know the rule
No comments:
Post a Comment