praveen2008
04-26 10:28 AM
Hello,
I am currently working for employer A on a 6th year H1 with approved 140 petition. MY current H1 is expiring June 2010. In the meantime I got an good offer from employer B who applied for H1 transfer using my approved 140 petition and I got an RFE. My question is god forbid , that if my H1 transfer petition is denied with employer B , can I continue working for Current employer A and if he can file for my H1 extension, come June? Also would there be any recursions, considering i already applied the H1 transfer now with the new employer ?
Please advice and i thank you in advance
I am currently working for employer A on a 6th year H1 with approved 140 petition. MY current H1 is expiring June 2010. In the meantime I got an good offer from employer B who applied for H1 transfer using my approved 140 petition and I got an RFE. My question is god forbid , that if my H1 transfer petition is denied with employer B , can I continue working for Current employer A and if he can file for my H1 extension, come June? Also would there be any recursions, considering i already applied the H1 transfer now with the new employer ?
Please advice and i thank you in advance
wallpaper girl hairstyle little girl
trs80
05-25 03:20 PM
Recently I registered in this website and I found is a great way to express our needs and keep informed about the immigration debate.
I see that PR and USVI are no listed in the state list. Here live a lot of H and L visa holders.
Recently my company lawyers told me that they summit my LC application using PERM.
What is the estimated time to get the Labor Certification?
Any idea of the GC process time in PR (I think that processing center is Vermont) ?
Thanks,
trs80
I see that PR and USVI are no listed in the state list. Here live a lot of H and L visa holders.
Recently my company lawyers told me that they summit my LC application using PERM.
What is the estimated time to get the Labor Certification?
Any idea of the GC process time in PR (I think that processing center is Vermont) ?
Thanks,
trs80
dcrtrv27
08-21 01:17 PM
Oh yes there are many like you check this thread.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20734
Good Luck
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20734
Good Luck
2011 sweet asian girl with
ashokmads
02-13 04:10 PM
Hi All,
My parents I94 is expiring on March 27th 2008.
We had filed for extension (form I 539) in California Service Centre with receipt date of Jan 02 2008.
Calif is currently processing Oct 2007 I529s.
My concerns are :
1) I think their stay here is legal till we hear back from USCIS on their extension. Please confirm if this is true.
2) If they get declined , they have to leave immediately. Is that period of stay considered illegal?
3) Is overstaying with legal extension an issue if they need to come again after 6 months or so? What is the criteria they look for for frequency of visits/stay periods at port of entry.
Will greatly appreciat all your personal experiences /wise opinion on this matter of pressing concern for us.
Thanks
Ash
My parents I94 is expiring on March 27th 2008.
We had filed for extension (form I 539) in California Service Centre with receipt date of Jan 02 2008.
Calif is currently processing Oct 2007 I529s.
My concerns are :
1) I think their stay here is legal till we hear back from USCIS on their extension. Please confirm if this is true.
2) If they get declined , they have to leave immediately. Is that period of stay considered illegal?
3) Is overstaying with legal extension an issue if they need to come again after 6 months or so? What is the criteria they look for for frequency of visits/stay periods at port of entry.
Will greatly appreciat all your personal experiences /wise opinion on this matter of pressing concern for us.
Thanks
Ash
more...
bodhi_tree
06-28 09:24 AM
It seems quite a few individuals with older priority dates from 2003 & 2004 are still waiting for a decision on their RiR cases (both state and regional) from Dallas BEC. It has been recently reported that many of these cases have received RFE's from BEC on a variety of issues (they might also have had an RFE at state or regional). I think it would be advantageous for all of us in similar situation if we can anonymously post the type of RFE's we receive and possible ramifactions for the same.
If some one knows of a similar thread elsewhere please provide a link, that way we can avoid duplicates.
If some one knows of a similar thread elsewhere please provide a link, that way we can avoid duplicates.
Macaca
07-29 06:03 PM
Bet on India (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072800999.html) The Bush administration presses forward with a nuclear agreement -- and hopes for a strategic partnership. July 29, 2007
IN LARGE PART, modern U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy began with India. India received U.S. aid under the "Atoms for Peace" program of the early Cold War era -- only to lose its U.S. fuel supply because India, which had refused to sign the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), exploded a nuclear "device" in 1974. Decades of U.S. noncooperation with India's civilian atomic energy program were intended to teach India, and the world, a lesson: You will not prosper if you go nuclear outside the system of international safeguards.
Friday marked another step toward the end of that policy -- also with India. The Bush administration and New Delhi announced the principles by which the United States will resume sales of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India, as promised by President Bush in July 2005. The fine print of the agreement, which must still be approved by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and by Congress, has not yet been released. But the big picture is clear: The administration is betting that the benefits to the United States and the world of a "strategic partnership" with India outweigh the risks of a giant exception to the old rules of the nonproliferation game.
There are good reasons to make the bet. India is a booming democracy of more than 1 billion people, clearly destined to play a growing role on the world stage. It can help the United States as a trading partner and as a strategic counterweight to China and Islamic extremists. If India uses more nuclear energy, it will emit less greenhouse gas. Perhaps most important, India has developed its own nuclear arsenal without selling materials or know-how to other potentially dangerous states. This is more than can be said for Pakistan, home of the notorious A.Q. Khan nuclear network.
You can call this a double standard, as some of the agreement's critics do: one set of rules for countries we like, another for those we don't. Or you can call it realism: The agreement provides for more international supervision of India's nuclear fuel cycle than there would be without it. For example, it allows India to reprocess atomic fuel but at a new facility under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, to protect against its diversion into weapons. The case for admitting India to the nuclear club is based on the plausible notion that the political character of a nuclear-armed state can be as important, or more important, than its signature on the NPT. North Korea, a Stalinist dictatorship, went nuclear while a member of the NPT; the Islamic Republic of Iran appears headed down the same road. Yet India's democratic system and its manifest interest in joining the global free-market economy suggest that it will behave responsibly.
Or so it must be hoped. The few details of the agreement released Friday suggest that it is very favorable to India indeed, while skating close to the edge of U.S. law. For example, the United States committed to helping India accumulate a nuclear fuel stockpile, thus insulating New Delhi against the threat, provided for by U.S. law, of a supply cutoff in the unlikely event that India resumes weapons testing. Congress is also asking appropriate questions about India's military-to-military contacts with Iran and about New Delhi's stubborn habit of attending meetings of "non-aligned" countries at which Cuba, Venezuela and others bash the United States. As Congress considers this deal, India might well focus on what it can do to show that it, too, thinks of the new strategic partnership with Washington as a two-way street.
IN LARGE PART, modern U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy began with India. India received U.S. aid under the "Atoms for Peace" program of the early Cold War era -- only to lose its U.S. fuel supply because India, which had refused to sign the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), exploded a nuclear "device" in 1974. Decades of U.S. noncooperation with India's civilian atomic energy program were intended to teach India, and the world, a lesson: You will not prosper if you go nuclear outside the system of international safeguards.
Friday marked another step toward the end of that policy -- also with India. The Bush administration and New Delhi announced the principles by which the United States will resume sales of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India, as promised by President Bush in July 2005. The fine print of the agreement, which must still be approved by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and by Congress, has not yet been released. But the big picture is clear: The administration is betting that the benefits to the United States and the world of a "strategic partnership" with India outweigh the risks of a giant exception to the old rules of the nonproliferation game.
There are good reasons to make the bet. India is a booming democracy of more than 1 billion people, clearly destined to play a growing role on the world stage. It can help the United States as a trading partner and as a strategic counterweight to China and Islamic extremists. If India uses more nuclear energy, it will emit less greenhouse gas. Perhaps most important, India has developed its own nuclear arsenal without selling materials or know-how to other potentially dangerous states. This is more than can be said for Pakistan, home of the notorious A.Q. Khan nuclear network.
You can call this a double standard, as some of the agreement's critics do: one set of rules for countries we like, another for those we don't. Or you can call it realism: The agreement provides for more international supervision of India's nuclear fuel cycle than there would be without it. For example, it allows India to reprocess atomic fuel but at a new facility under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, to protect against its diversion into weapons. The case for admitting India to the nuclear club is based on the plausible notion that the political character of a nuclear-armed state can be as important, or more important, than its signature on the NPT. North Korea, a Stalinist dictatorship, went nuclear while a member of the NPT; the Islamic Republic of Iran appears headed down the same road. Yet India's democratic system and its manifest interest in joining the global free-market economy suggest that it will behave responsibly.
Or so it must be hoped. The few details of the agreement released Friday suggest that it is very favorable to India indeed, while skating close to the edge of U.S. law. For example, the United States committed to helping India accumulate a nuclear fuel stockpile, thus insulating New Delhi against the threat, provided for by U.S. law, of a supply cutoff in the unlikely event that India resumes weapons testing. Congress is also asking appropriate questions about India's military-to-military contacts with Iran and about New Delhi's stubborn habit of attending meetings of "non-aligned" countries at which Cuba, Venezuela and others bash the United States. As Congress considers this deal, India might well focus on what it can do to show that it, too, thinks of the new strategic partnership with Washington as a two-way street.
more...
silverandre
03-17 11:07 PM
Hello! I went to US to work in a summer/work travel experience under a J1 VISA.
My VISA expired on APR/01/2007 , but I sent a letter to USCIS asking to change my VISA status to B1/B2. The letter just arrived at the USCIS Office on APR/02/2007. I kept working until JUN/15.
In JUN/20/2007 I left US back to my home country and later accessing the USCIS site I figured out that my request was processed and denied.
Now I'm graduated in Business and was hired to work in a big company in NYC, they are requesting me to get another J1 VISA (this time J1 Trainee for a 1,5 year).
I would like to know if this kind of situation generates a BAN, or if I will have any kind of trouble in the interview in the US Embassy.
Thank you so much!
My VISA expired on APR/01/2007 , but I sent a letter to USCIS asking to change my VISA status to B1/B2. The letter just arrived at the USCIS Office on APR/02/2007. I kept working until JUN/15.
In JUN/20/2007 I left US back to my home country and later accessing the USCIS site I figured out that my request was processed and denied.
Now I'm graduated in Business and was hired to work in a big company in NYC, they are requesting me to get another J1 VISA (this time J1 Trainee for a 1,5 year).
I would like to know if this kind of situation generates a BAN, or if I will have any kind of trouble in the interview in the US Embassy.
Thank you so much!
2010 haircuts for asian girls.
eb3India
03-08 09:46 PM
"The first proposal for immigration reform this year is expected to be introduced by Senators John McCain and Kennedy in the next week"
Here is the statement from this article, how did they predict this timeline,
something is cooking
Here is the statement from this article, how did they predict this timeline,
something is cooking
more...
Raj3
12-14 03:30 PM
HI,
My company is processing my Green card and recently applied my I-140. My wife is applying for residency this year. Most of hospitals are saying that they can sponsor only a J-1 visa. Can you please suggest if this would be a problem for my Green Card processing and/or her visa stamping (Since applying for G.C means that we wants to stay and J-1 means the other way round)?
Thanks,
-Raj.
My company is processing my Green card and recently applied my I-140. My wife is applying for residency this year. Most of hospitals are saying that they can sponsor only a J-1 visa. Can you please suggest if this would be a problem for my Green Card processing and/or her visa stamping (Since applying for G.C means that we wants to stay and J-1 means the other way round)?
Thanks,
-Raj.
hair Wedding Hairstyles for Black
Macaca
07-22 05:33 PM
For Real Drama, Senate Should Engage In a True Filibuster (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_8/ornstein/19415-1.html) By Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute, July 18, 2007
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
more...
manishkatiyar
01-11 04:54 PM
I am on L1 and my wife was working on L2 + EAD since Aug-2007 with her employer.
She got her H1B approved in Oct-2009 with the same employer - which means that she automatically moved to H1B, correct?
We went to India but she gave her L2 I-94 on departure and did not give H1B I-94
She entered back to US on L2 on 03-Jan so I am assuming that her status has been updated to L2 now.
Please advise if at all she needs to move to H1B again since her L2 EAD is still valid.
If she needs to move to H1B, then what is the best way, we can easily go to Meixco for stamping from LA.
Thanks
She got her H1B approved in Oct-2009 with the same employer - which means that she automatically moved to H1B, correct?
We went to India but she gave her L2 I-94 on departure and did not give H1B I-94
She entered back to US on L2 on 03-Jan so I am assuming that her status has been updated to L2 now.
Please advise if at all she needs to move to H1B again since her L2 EAD is still valid.
If she needs to move to H1B, then what is the best way, we can easily go to Meixco for stamping from LA.
Thanks
hot Cool Asian Female Hairstyles
STAmisha
06-21 10:23 AM
CAN WE APPLY 140 and 485 without physical Labor APPROVAL?
My lawyer emailed me saying that she called P-BEC and my LC is approved. We neither have the physical paper nor the online status shows "In-Process"
How do I apply for 140 and 485?
My lawyer emailed me saying that she called P-BEC and my LC is approved. We neither have the physical paper nor the online status shows "In-Process"
How do I apply for 140 and 485?
more...
house house makeup 2010 Asian Hairstyles Trends asian hairstyles 2010 for girls.
sameet
06-16 08:16 PM
I just filed for an H1B transfer in April. My current H1 is valid till April 2010. Just got an email from CRIS stating that my current I-129 case which was approved in April 2007 has been reopened at USCIS determination for review. Is there a problem or is it just normal procedure to look at the original H1B petition? Have transfered H1B before but have never had this happen. Is this something new that they are doing? Incidentally I am on the 10th year of my H1B and have a copy of the approved I-140 based on which we filed for a 3 year extension.
tattoo asian girl hairstyle. cute
sw33t
07-27 03:28 PM
SENATOR CORNYN IS THE CHAIR OF THE INDIA CAUCUS IN THE U.S. SENATE
WHO: U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas
WHEN: Thursday,August 9,
Lunch: 11:30 a.m.
Speech: 12:30 p.m.
WHERE: Lakeway Inn, New Glass Ballroom
SPONSOR: Rotary Club/Lakeway
Lake Travis
COST: $250 per table of 10,
or $25 per individual
RESERVATIONS: MANDATORY!
10 Tables are being reserved
for Rotary & Guests
20 Table reservations will
be taken and must be paid for
by July 27, 2007!
Please PM me if you are interested.
WHO: U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas
WHEN: Thursday,August 9,
Lunch: 11:30 a.m.
Speech: 12:30 p.m.
WHERE: Lakeway Inn, New Glass Ballroom
SPONSOR: Rotary Club/Lakeway
Lake Travis
COST: $250 per table of 10,
or $25 per individual
RESERVATIONS: MANDATORY!
10 Tables are being reserved
for Rotary & Guests
20 Table reservations will
be taken and must be paid for
by July 27, 2007!
Please PM me if you are interested.
more...
pictures girlfriend Top Asian Girls
Blog Feeds
09-28 12:40 PM
The Cap seem to be moving slowly in the past few months, but something is different with the release of the new count this week.
As of September 18, 2009, approximately 46,000 H-1B (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html) cap-subject petitions and approximately 20,000 petitions qualifying for the advanced degree cap exemption had been filed. It seems that some employers are hiring again and willing to file for H1B visas for specialty workers. This is a good sign, but this also means that visas may run out sooner than expected.
USCIS will continue to accept both cap-subject petitions and advanced degree petitions until a sufficient number of H-1B petitions have been received to reach the statutory limits, taking into account the fact that some of these petitions may be denied, revoked, or withdrawn.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/09/h1b_visa_cap_september_24_2009.html)
As of September 18, 2009, approximately 46,000 H-1B (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html) cap-subject petitions and approximately 20,000 petitions qualifying for the advanced degree cap exemption had been filed. It seems that some employers are hiring again and willing to file for H1B visas for specialty workers. This is a good sign, but this also means that visas may run out sooner than expected.
USCIS will continue to accept both cap-subject petitions and advanced degree petitions until a sufficient number of H-1B petitions have been received to reach the statutory limits, taking into account the fact that some of these petitions may be denied, revoked, or withdrawn.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/09/h1b_visa_cap_september_24_2009.html)
dresses asian girls hairstyle.
seekerofpeace
09-29 12:48 PM
Folks,
My congressman's office came back with this response for my query on why my wife's case is pending..not even pre-adjudicated, while I got approved on Sept 3rd from TSC.
according to TSC, your file and your wife�s were separated at time of adjudication and that is what has caused the delay. I�m trying to find out why.
Anything like this happened to anyone. Is there anything that can be done, to recombine the cases. My attorney is not very responsive since he was with my last employer. What are my options? I am worried her case is falling thru the cracks. Without any information on the principal applicant and derivative's case may never get adjudicated.....
SoP
My congressman's office came back with this response for my query on why my wife's case is pending..not even pre-adjudicated, while I got approved on Sept 3rd from TSC.
according to TSC, your file and your wife�s were separated at time of adjudication and that is what has caused the delay. I�m trying to find out why.
Anything like this happened to anyone. Is there anything that can be done, to recombine the cases. My attorney is not very responsive since he was with my last employer. What are my options? I am worried her case is falling thru the cracks. Without any information on the principal applicant and derivative's case may never get adjudicated.....
SoP
more...
makeup makeup cute Asian girls
salvador marley
05-01 10:21 PM
dont worry - its gone :(
girlfriend asian girl hairstyle. cute
Blog Feeds
09-11 08:20 PM
Back in 1986, Immigration Judges denied almost 90% of all asylum requests. Now, during the past 9 months, the Judges granted 50% of asylum requests. What's more, the disparities among various Immigration Judges have narrowed somewhat. This information is contained in a new report issued by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) of the University of Syracuse. This increase in approvals tracks with another important consideration: In 1986, only a little more than half of all asylum applicants were represented by an attorney. Today, over 90% of asylum applicants have attorneys. Attorney-represented asylum seekers have their cases granted 54% of...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/09/asylum-some-progress-but-much-more-needs-to-be-done.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/09/asylum-some-progress-but-much-more-needs-to-be-done.html)
hairstyles girls hairstyle cute girls
miguy
07-19 08:06 AM
If I file my I-485 through my lawyer, will I have to be with him for all subsequent EAD/AP renewals as well or can I renew them on my own?
Do lawyers charge extra for EAD/AP renwals?
Do lawyers charge extra for EAD/AP renwals?
moveahead123
10-11 05:33 PM
Call Customer Service. Phone no. is provided on any of your recipt notices. These is an option for typos on the document, when you call them. Tell them and they will open a Service Request, and update your name either when you go for fingerprinting or immedately. Mostly, they will open service request. You should also get an email confirming the Request made by you within few days (When I called for my typo, they said witin 45days, but got the mail within 15 days). Take that email with you if you get it before fingerprinting.
trictrac
08-04 03:50 PM
Will try to shorten the story.
I was with ABC consulting company and had applied for GC (and got perm and 140 approved). My contract with client ended. Though ABC were good but they could not get me a project so I had to shift to another company. I talked to ABC to get my GC proceeding with extra cost. They said (and attorney also) said my 485 has been filed. As the ABC had changed their name also, as notification for I-140. They also insisted to join back.
My new company layoff quite a lot of people. Needless to say, me also. Now my easy option is to join them back, but is there any possibility that to make me continue to work for them, they can do mess up in GC process?
May be question is quite personal, please suggest whatever cmes to your mind.
Thanks,
trictrac
I was with ABC consulting company and had applied for GC (and got perm and 140 approved). My contract with client ended. Though ABC were good but they could not get me a project so I had to shift to another company. I talked to ABC to get my GC proceeding with extra cost. They said (and attorney also) said my 485 has been filed. As the ABC had changed their name also, as notification for I-140. They also insisted to join back.
My new company layoff quite a lot of people. Needless to say, me also. Now my easy option is to join them back, but is there any possibility that to make me continue to work for them, they can do mess up in GC process?
May be question is quite personal, please suggest whatever cmes to your mind.
Thanks,
trictrac
No comments:
Post a Comment