srini1976
01-10 07:50 PM
I heard yes. 20 employees were laid off on 13th Jan
wallpaper Spiderman 3D
akred
07-25 08:04 PM
I have found that SBI is the most cost effective one. There is some inconvienience as you have to register with them, but every transfer after that can be accomplished with a fax to their offices.
vineet
01-17 07:32 PM
Heard about a similar issue with the EAD for a colleague at work today. Will let you know what the company lawyers recommend him to do....
-Viny
-Viny
2011 3D Spiderman Ride 2.50 min.
bergotti
08-23 05:27 PM
Is this category seen as one or is it split into many countries and if so how do you find out about a particular country within ROW?
Thanks
Thanks
more...
docwa
05-04 05:56 PM
I discussed my situation with Mr Finklestein a senior Lawyer, with Sheila Murthy firm. He says, I can anything with my time as long as I have an employment offer letter that has a job offer to match the labor cert at time of adjudication. With Eb2 India being as retrogressed as it is, that could be 5 years away. I am going ahead with fellowship on EAD.
lazycis
05-07 01:22 PM
from AC21 memo issued on December 27, 2005
Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?
Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for “same or similar” employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.
So find a new job before I-485 is approved.
Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?
Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for “same or similar” employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.
So find a new job before I-485 is approved.
more...
Hewa
10-13 02:54 PM
Be decent. Look good.
I've been there with a shirt and jeans, sometime shirt and trouser.
But never a tie.
I've been there with a shirt and jeans, sometime shirt and trouser.
But never a tie.
2010 Spider-Man 4? Spider-Man 3D?
India76
07-17 06:25 PM
India76,
U have till Aug 17th to file AOS. U can go to india and come back before AUG 17 to file
is it official that we can file till August 17th? i didn't see that in august bulletin. please let me know as you know how important is that..... Well its timing...
U have till Aug 17th to file AOS. U can go to india and come back before AUG 17 to file
is it official that we can file till August 17th? i didn't see that in august bulletin. please let me know as you know how important is that..... Well its timing...
more...
sroyc
12-11 04:24 AM
From what I understand, the annual quota is 140K. The extra 23K was the spillover from last year's FB quota and was distributed in the following order - EB1->EB2->EB3.
Perhaps unfairly, they do not have the same quotas for the spillover visas.
Does anybody know why EB3 Total number (45,650) doesn't translate into 28% of annual quota (163,037). Does it mean EB3 didn't get their fair share (forget about per country limit)? This is insane.
Perhaps unfairly, they do not have the same quotas for the spillover visas.
Does anybody know why EB3 Total number (45,650) doesn't translate into 28% of annual quota (163,037). Does it mean EB3 didn't get their fair share (forget about per country limit)? This is insane.
hair spiderman 3D
desi3933
07-19 11:35 AM
Hello IV Members,
I have a question about my Wife status(H4) here in United States, My I-485 (EB3/PD DEC 2003) got approved on July 16'th and my lawyer says they have applied my wife I-485 application on July 17'th after USCIS released rescinded July 2'nd bulletin.
My I-485 was applied before our marriage,Can anybody please share some thoughts on my wife status(H4) at present??.
Any help on getting more information will be greatly appreciated..My lawyer says she should be fine.please share your experiences.
Thanks.
You are ok.
Your wife had 180 days to file her I-485 after your approval. And that has been already filed. So no need to worry.
And, Congratulations for your I-485 approval. Welcome to the GC club.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
I have a question about my Wife status(H4) here in United States, My I-485 (EB3/PD DEC 2003) got approved on July 16'th and my lawyer says they have applied my wife I-485 application on July 17'th after USCIS released rescinded July 2'nd bulletin.
My I-485 was applied before our marriage,Can anybody please share some thoughts on my wife status(H4) at present??.
Any help on getting more information will be greatly appreciated..My lawyer says she should be fine.please share your experiences.
Thanks.
You are ok.
Your wife had 180 days to file her I-485 after your approval. And that has been already filed. So no need to worry.
And, Congratulations for your I-485 approval. Welcome to the GC club.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
hot 3D Spiderman cake
ps57002
07-18 12:06 PM
There's no need for you to be negative.
Obviously you have benefitted already from what's happened. Think about people who are stuck (just as you were up until recently) and want to 'try' to make things work for them too....
wish people were more understanding of others also. Why is it people forget what it was like for them when they were in same boat?
Obviously you have benefitted already from what's happened. Think about people who are stuck (just as you were up until recently) and want to 'try' to make things work for them too....
wish people were more understanding of others also. Why is it people forget what it was like for them when they were in same boat?
more...
house spiderman 3d cake.
rsdang
08-25 02:06 PM
I work for Company A, applied i-485 and both got EAD & AP.She is the dependent.
My Wife works for Company B which sponsored her H1.
So, I guess she cannot continue to work on H1(company B) upon returning using AP(got as my dependent thru Company A) !!!?? am I correct?
She can work for any company she wants... her EAD is not limited to any job/profession... So she can work for Company B or C or D
PS - My wife works for company B using AP/EAD that came as a result of my I485 done by my employer. So she should enter on AP and use EAD to work. No issues. She can always have the H1 in her back pocket for back up... I would consult a lawyer if I were you before using the H1...
She can not get an H4 though... thats seen as abandoning your AOS status...
Hope this helps...
My Wife works for Company B which sponsored her H1.
So, I guess she cannot continue to work on H1(company B) upon returning using AP(got as my dependent thru Company A) !!!?? am I correct?
She can work for any company she wants... her EAD is not limited to any job/profession... So she can work for Company B or C or D
PS - My wife works for company B using AP/EAD that came as a result of my I485 done by my employer. So she should enter on AP and use EAD to work. No issues. She can always have the H1 in her back pocket for back up... I would consult a lawyer if I were you before using the H1...
She can not get an H4 though... thats seen as abandoning your AOS status...
Hope this helps...
tattoo spiderman 3d tattoo. spiderman
ebizash
03-31 03:44 PM
I wonder why his/her handle is "webPromo"??? hmm... promoting "something" on the web...:D.
more...
pictures spiderman 3d 2012.
eb3_nepa
04-27 06:13 PM
Apologise for 2 threads on the same thing. Tried going back and modifying the text a little bit, only to create a new thread.
dresses Spiderman 3D Ride- IN PULFRICH
deba
09-09 10:28 PM
Nothing surprising here. I have yet to hear about one desi employer who has not exploited H1b. The system is set up to favor the employer. Employees hardly have a choice. Those in favor of increasing the quota should also lobby for complete portability without any penalty to keep the system fair.
Deb
Contrib $600 so far + $300 for rally
EB2 India PD 03/05
I140 09/07
I485 07/07
Deb
Contrib $600 so far + $300 for rally
EB2 India PD 03/05
I140 09/07
I485 07/07
more...
makeup spiderman 3d ride. to the
shantak
03-18 06:45 PM
If you have left your I-140 company, that I-140 is dead. No wonder you have not heard back. It's not pending, it's cancelled. I-140 is employer based and therefore if USCIS said they were not satisfied with place of work, which reads: not enough income for the company to be able to pay you the salary declared in the I140 app. If you did not reply to their show-cause within the time frame stated, your I-140 application is deemed abandoned.
How will an I-140 gets cancelled just because he left the company. GC is for future employment, that should have nothing to do with the current employment. Same with Place of work issue, place of issue on H1 has nothing to do with I-140
As amit has suggested approaching Senators will do wonders (atleast for some)
How will an I-140 gets cancelled just because he left the company. GC is for future employment, that should have nothing to do with the current employment. Same with Place of work issue, place of issue on H1 has nothing to do with I-140
As amit has suggested approaching Senators will do wonders (atleast for some)
girlfriend Spider-Man controlled well,
senthil1
06-11 10:47 PM
1. Legally speaking he has to leave immeditely. But INS is not inhuman in those cases. If he finds a job within a few weeks he should be ok unless his previous company cancels H1b.
2. At least he has to get some H1B before his previous company cancels H1b. for transfering H1b.
3. If his previous company does not cancel H1b he can stay some time may be 1 or 2 months(But he will be out of status not overstay). If his company cancels H1b then that will be overstay then he has to leave the country. Best thing is find a consulting company and file H1b transfer before previous company cancels H1b. If that is not possible he can switch to F1 if he gets admission in University.
4. Recent paystub is needed to transfer H1b. If recent paystub is not there then it is INS dicretion to give H1b transfer
Those answers may not be accurate but may give some idea
Hi,
One of my friends got fired from a company and the company made him to sign a document that he was resigning. This guy somehow signed it so that he could get his salary. The employer eventually paid him the salary after signing the resignation document.
Few questions about his H1B visa.
1. How many days can he legally stay in the US before he finds one more job gets new H1B.
2. Can he transfer his H1B visa to a new company or does he need to apply for a new H1B visa (which is within the cap)?
3. Incase if he doesn't find a job within the legally permitted time, what are his options apart from going back?
4. Will he have any problem when he tries to transfer his H1B after the legally permitted time?
I would really appreciate if anyone can please help me with this questions.
Thank you very much!
2. At least he has to get some H1B before his previous company cancels H1b. for transfering H1b.
3. If his previous company does not cancel H1b he can stay some time may be 1 or 2 months(But he will be out of status not overstay). If his company cancels H1b then that will be overstay then he has to leave the country. Best thing is find a consulting company and file H1b transfer before previous company cancels H1b. If that is not possible he can switch to F1 if he gets admission in University.
4. Recent paystub is needed to transfer H1b. If recent paystub is not there then it is INS dicretion to give H1b transfer
Those answers may not be accurate but may give some idea
Hi,
One of my friends got fired from a company and the company made him to sign a document that he was resigning. This guy somehow signed it so that he could get his salary. The employer eventually paid him the salary after signing the resignation document.
Few questions about his H1B visa.
1. How many days can he legally stay in the US before he finds one more job gets new H1B.
2. Can he transfer his H1B visa to a new company or does he need to apply for a new H1B visa (which is within the cap)?
3. Incase if he doesn't find a job within the legally permitted time, what are his options apart from going back?
4. Will he have any problem when he tries to transfer his H1B after the legally permitted time?
I would really appreciate if anyone can please help me with this questions.
Thank you very much!
hairstyles Spiderman 3D Model
sb15
01-31 10:25 PM
Thanks for your time guys...just curious hopefully SB can help me...how do I find out my I-140 subcategory(skilled category or Professional).In my I-140 receipt notice under section it mentioned as Skilled worker or Professional, sec.203(b)(3)A(i) or (ii)
If your i-140 reciept mentions 'Skilled worker or Professional, sec.203(b)(3)A(i) or (ii)' Then you are good to go.....dont worry about it was applied as skilled worker.... you should not have any problem in getting the approval again if you company financial status is good..
All the best..
BTW what is your service center, NSC or Texas ?
Thanks
sb
If your i-140 reciept mentions 'Skilled worker or Professional, sec.203(b)(3)A(i) or (ii)' Then you are good to go.....dont worry about it was applied as skilled worker.... you should not have any problem in getting the approval again if you company financial status is good..
All the best..
BTW what is your service center, NSC or Texas ?
Thanks
sb
santosh_guha
07-14 06:28 PM
I'm ready to join the Texas Chapter. I reside in Houston.
needhelp!
07-30 02:26 AM
please count me for tx (dallas)
No comments:
Post a Comment