AB1275
12-16 11:36 AM
My lawyer has submitted the advertisement to TWC for EB2 and EB3 category to weigh the options. She says it takes 5-10 business days for a response.....Is this true?
She suggested that if we take the route of EB2 for the second time, the scrutiny will be more intense and hence my W-2 of 2008 should also show the wages per the payscale even though my new filing will start in 2009. Is this true?
Kindly help!
She suggested that if we take the route of EB2 for the second time, the scrutiny will be more intense and hence my W-2 of 2008 should also show the wages per the payscale even though my new filing will start in 2009. Is this true?
Kindly help!
wallpaper selena gomez bikini kissing
sirinme
03-16 02:21 PM
I got this letter from USCIS last week, but wasn't aware of this action item. I hope it's not too late.
centaur
03-27 05:45 PM
You need to get another attorney, first and foremost. Sorry its a bit harsh, but it's for your best. There might be problems later and you need to ask yourself-- is this attorney (who apparently didnot go through the case before filing) giving you what you paid for?
I received my Labor Certificate with PERM process. Right now, I can't continue the process for I-140 and I-485. My lawyer just found out that my degree is Master of Business Administration, while the Labor Certificate is based on Master of Science. My current position is Software Engineer.
My questions are:
1. Is there a problem of having an MBA and working as a software engineer? As my understanding, MBA and MSc are the same level.
2. Can I continue the case since I already got my Labor Certificate?
I appreciate your feedback. Thank you.
I received my Labor Certificate with PERM process. Right now, I can't continue the process for I-140 and I-485. My lawyer just found out that my degree is Master of Business Administration, while the Labor Certificate is based on Master of Science. My current position is Software Engineer.
My questions are:
1. Is there a problem of having an MBA and working as a software engineer? As my understanding, MBA and MSc are the same level.
2. Can I continue the case since I already got my Labor Certificate?
I appreciate your feedback. Thank you.
2011 selena gomez bikini photos.
mrdelhiite
01-10 01:47 PM
She can continue to work with the same employer on H1 without any issue. I did traveled back thrice using AP and renewed by H1 with the same employer twice without any issues. Though I have my H1 valid till 2010, it is invalid after my GC approval :(.
Thanks
Can you explain ur case in detail. the part "I did traveled back thrice using AP and renewed by H1 with the same employer twice without any issues." is interesting ... did u renew H1 by getting another stamp ... did u change companies on H1 after the AP travel ?
-M
Thanks
Can you explain ur case in detail. the part "I did traveled back thrice using AP and renewed by H1 with the same employer twice without any issues." is interesting ... did u renew H1 by getting another stamp ... did u change companies on H1 after the AP travel ?
-M
more...
singhsa3
11-15 10:16 AM
Still only 6 people have courage to speak out. What is running in your veins, water?
We may not be able make changes in the law now but we might be able to get some relief on restrictions, that does not allow law making.
Educate yourself or suffer...
We may not be able make changes in the law now but we might be able to get some relief on restrictions, that does not allow law making.
Educate yourself or suffer...
nonimmi
06-20 01:44 PM
If the visa is already expired, you better wait to get the travel documents (AP) so you don't need to go for stamping.
If you use AP to go and return without stamping new H1, can you continue working with H1 or you've to use EAD? And if you use EAD, can you be with current employer?? This is confusing!! :confused:
If you use AP to go and return without stamping new H1, can you continue working with H1 or you've to use EAD? And if you use EAD, can you be with current employer?? This is confusing!! :confused:
more...
jsb
11-14 12:11 PM
Well, are you sure I would need to work for this "future employer" for 6 months?
AC21 does not have a limit on the number of times you switch employers. Technically, if you were working for Employer A at the time of the RFE and submit a EVL from Employer A, you could then switch to Employer B immediately on AC21. In this scenario, I haven't worked with A for 6 months.
Is this scenario different because A is not a future employer?
With LC, I-140 and I-485 process, intentions of employee/employer relationship are expected to be bonafide, otherwise it would be fraud. Although a lot of people mention here, and some attorneys suggest, to work for 6 months for the sponsoring employer, there doesn't appear to be any law on that. Circumstances can change any time (AC21 supports that). Therefore, six month, or whatever period you may want to fix, is merely to strength the case that the sponsorship was bonafide. AC21 guidelines are quite lenient in that matter.
Bottomline is whatever happened, or you can provide, to support that there was no fraudulent intent, you are fine. If situation is not clear, and someone decides to contend, courts may come into picture.
Some people mention that six-month working could haunt you at citizenship time, but I doubt that. USCIS have a lot of other things to look at. If you have been a good citizen until then you should be fine.
AC21 does not have a limit on the number of times you switch employers. Technically, if you were working for Employer A at the time of the RFE and submit a EVL from Employer A, you could then switch to Employer B immediately on AC21. In this scenario, I haven't worked with A for 6 months.
Is this scenario different because A is not a future employer?
With LC, I-140 and I-485 process, intentions of employee/employer relationship are expected to be bonafide, otherwise it would be fraud. Although a lot of people mention here, and some attorneys suggest, to work for 6 months for the sponsoring employer, there doesn't appear to be any law on that. Circumstances can change any time (AC21 supports that). Therefore, six month, or whatever period you may want to fix, is merely to strength the case that the sponsorship was bonafide. AC21 guidelines are quite lenient in that matter.
Bottomline is whatever happened, or you can provide, to support that there was no fraudulent intent, you are fine. If situation is not clear, and someone decides to contend, courts may come into picture.
Some people mention that six-month working could haunt you at citizenship time, but I doubt that. USCIS have a lot of other things to look at. If you have been a good citizen until then you should be fine.
2010 at selena gomez tits lulz
HOPE_GC_SOON
03-28 10:15 AM
guys, Murthy says EB2 will move forward in May 2008 bulletine. Reason is getting leftover visa from EB1 India's category.
http://murthy.com/bulletin.html
hoping big forward move.:D
Hi Dipika;
This is good News.. Quite encouraging to spend the weekend off with some motivation/ happiness.
Do We have any statsitstics, as to how many Visa Nos. could have been Spilled off from unused EB1 and how many India / Chia may share out of it. That would give clear picture to this Speculation.
Gurus: Any Link/ Previous threads, Explaining No. of EB2 cases.. Interesting stuff to analyze during the weeknd.
Thanks again for all the team work
http://murthy.com/bulletin.html
hoping big forward move.:D
Hi Dipika;
This is good News.. Quite encouraging to spend the weekend off with some motivation/ happiness.
Do We have any statsitstics, as to how many Visa Nos. could have been Spilled off from unused EB1 and how many India / Chia may share out of it. That would give clear picture to this Speculation.
Gurus: Any Link/ Previous threads, Explaining No. of EB2 cases.. Interesting stuff to analyze during the weeknd.
Thanks again for all the team work
more...
Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
hair Lovato and Selena Gomez in
needhelp!
03-06 04:43 PM
Just faxed.
more...
gc28262
08-27 06:37 PM
Use FOIA form to get a copy of your I-140 approval notice. It is a slow process. Can take upto a year to get the document.
USCIS - Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts (FOIA) (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextchannel=34139c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a 1RCRD&vgnextoid=34139c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD )
USCIS - Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts (FOIA) (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextchannel=34139c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a 1RCRD&vgnextoid=34139c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD )
hot selena gomez bikini 1 Selena
EndlessWait
06-18 04:00 PM
Under Part 3.
What should one put for
1. Nonimmigrant Visa number
2. Date Visa Issued
3. Consulate Where Visa was Issued.
I'm currently on a valid H1 extension with a valid I-94. The visa on passport has expired and I had got an extension within US. Anybody any ideas????
What should one put for
1. Nonimmigrant Visa number
2. Date Visa Issued
3. Consulate Where Visa was Issued.
I'm currently on a valid H1 extension with a valid I-94. The visa on passport has expired and I had got an extension within US. Anybody any ideas????
more...
house selena gomez bikini with
%25252525255B1%25252525255D.jpg "selena gomez bikini photos.")
xyz
05-11 08:14 AM
The following question is posed at www.ktrh.com which is a website for a Houston AM talk radio. This radio station usually plays conservative programs including Rush Limbaugh. So, it is likely that mostly conservatives are visiting and voting on this website:
Should highly skilled workers move to the front of the immigration line?
The current poll results:
Yes: 59.56%
No: 40.44%
You can go to this website to view the poll. However, to view the statistics for the first time you will have to vote. To clarify, in the news program this morning they were talking about the points based immigration system which, according to them, is "quitely being considered in the Senate", and they were mentioning that the points based system would favor highly skilled immigrants over extended family and low-skill immigrants.
The point-based system will not be good for this country. Many other countries have point-based systems such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, etc. The most who immigrate in these countries on the point-based system don't have jobs. Only those should be allowed to immigrate who has the job offer here. All the immigration fees and expenses to immigrate should be borne by the employer offering the job.
Not only this, the people who promote this point-based system are interested in shutting off immgration based on family unification. Why you would not like your own family members to be here, when they all have been allowed until this day to bring their own family members from European countries.
Should highly skilled workers move to the front of the immigration line?
The current poll results:
Yes: 59.56%
No: 40.44%
You can go to this website to view the poll. However, to view the statistics for the first time you will have to vote. To clarify, in the news program this morning they were talking about the points based immigration system which, according to them, is "quitely being considered in the Senate", and they were mentioning that the points based system would favor highly skilled immigrants over extended family and low-skill immigrants.
The point-based system will not be good for this country. Many other countries have point-based systems such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, etc. The most who immigrate in these countries on the point-based system don't have jobs. Only those should be allowed to immigrate who has the job offer here. All the immigration fees and expenses to immigrate should be borne by the employer offering the job.
Not only this, the people who promote this point-based system are interested in shutting off immgration based on family unification. Why you would not like your own family members to be here, when they all have been allowed until this day to bring their own family members from European countries.
tattoo selena gomez bikini with
thomachan72
04-18 12:19 PM
Does your husband currently have a valid H1b visa "STAMPED" in his passport??
more...
pictures selena gomez in ikini
coopheal
04-13 12:13 AM
That is incorrect. USCIS would send a copy of RFE to you as well.
My wife got a medical RFE and I'm looking at the letter from USCIS as I type.
Yes, We did sign the lawyer form. Lawyer first got a copy and informed us. He also told us that we would be getting one. And we got one.
For me I never got a any communication directly from USCIS for the RFE.
My wife got a medical RFE and I'm looking at the letter from USCIS as I type.
Yes, We did sign the lawyer form. Lawyer first got a copy and informed us. He also told us that we would be getting one. And we got one.
For me I never got a any communication directly from USCIS for the RFE.
dresses Selena Gomez Bikini MonteCarlo
pappu
10-19 02:31 PM
When did this happen? Why wasn't such a major policy change communicated on the Home Page?!
Is "Bill Pay" option ever going be re-instated?!!
This is only temporary. We will accept the checks after some time and will update the page.
Is "Bill Pay" option ever going be re-instated?!!
This is only temporary. We will accept the checks after some time and will update the page.
more...
makeup selena gomez bikini photo
STAmisha
11-14 02:36 PM
s
girlfriend Selena Gomez in Bikini for
minimalist
04-12 10:40 PM
Do we really need to attach a copy of the front page of the passport for AP renewal, wouldn't a copy of the DL be sufficient enough?
No need for passport front page.
No need for passport front page.
hairstyles selena gomez bikini blue.
fide_champ
04-06 06:30 AM
Hello all,
Anyone knows if there is a certain length of time that I need to be employed with my GC sponsor after 485 approval?
I have heard 3-4 months, but I am wondering if there is legal time limit or if this is a "good faith" limit.
Appreciate responses.
The time limit is 6 months. But if 6 months have already elapsed after filing I485, then you are free to go anywhere.
Anyone knows if there is a certain length of time that I need to be employed with my GC sponsor after 485 approval?
I have heard 3-4 months, but I am wondering if there is legal time limit or if this is a "good faith" limit.
Appreciate responses.
The time limit is 6 months. But if 6 months have already elapsed after filing I485, then you are free to go anywhere.
senthil1
07-26 10:04 AM
I am not sure about changing H4 to F1 as F1 is dual intent visa. I am sure mostly your wife's F1 will be rejected at Consulate as her spouse is staying here but I am not sure about changing status from H4
to F1 here.
If you accept that you are taking some risk then it is fine. Sometimes all the 4 options may work against you. Also if your wife comes here within a few months then it may be ok. But if it takes 1 year or more then your company Lawyer is correct. Take advise of second lawyer
Also I did not hear anything about option 2.That is mainly for those who were out of status for less than 6 months
Hello everyone,
I got to know about this website recently and I wish I had known it earlier.
Anyway, I need advice/conformation
I got married recently outside the US. However, I did not come back with my wife b/c of a couple of reasons. And I cannot bring her here in the next 3 weeks. (My H1B is getting renewed...)
The company's lawyer is advising me not file for I-485 and wait till I become current again and apply with my wife then. (I am EB3 and my PD is March 2005)
After reading this web and others, if I go ahead and apply now the following are the choices that I have later. Please confirm if I am right or wrong
1. Get every document ready for my wife at all times and apply for I-485 immediately after I become current. As long as they receive her I-485 before they approve mine, she is going to be fine. She will be fine even if they receive her I-485 a day before they approve mine.
2. If my I-485 gets approved before my wife’s I-485 get there, under section 245(k), she has 180 days to send in her I-485 as long as PD is current. And there is no penalty and no other problem with this. She can stay in the country and wait for her I-485 to approve.
3. If I though that it was a grave mistake to apply for my I-485, I can withdraw it before it gets approved and reapply later with my wife’s when I become current again. No problem with this other than paying the fees again.
4. My wife and change her H4 to F1 any time she wants to as long as she goes to school full time. She could be on F1 and apply for I-485 when I become current (I feel uneasy on this one).
Please, let me know if what I listed above is right. These are the only choices that I have ready about. If there are more choices please, let me know that too. I have to make a decision by the end of tomorrow. Thank you all!
to F1 here.
If you accept that you are taking some risk then it is fine. Sometimes all the 4 options may work against you. Also if your wife comes here within a few months then it may be ok. But if it takes 1 year or more then your company Lawyer is correct. Take advise of second lawyer
Also I did not hear anything about option 2.That is mainly for those who were out of status for less than 6 months
Hello everyone,
I got to know about this website recently and I wish I had known it earlier.
Anyway, I need advice/conformation
I got married recently outside the US. However, I did not come back with my wife b/c of a couple of reasons. And I cannot bring her here in the next 3 weeks. (My H1B is getting renewed...)
The company's lawyer is advising me not file for I-485 and wait till I become current again and apply with my wife then. (I am EB3 and my PD is March 2005)
After reading this web and others, if I go ahead and apply now the following are the choices that I have later. Please confirm if I am right or wrong
1. Get every document ready for my wife at all times and apply for I-485 immediately after I become current. As long as they receive her I-485 before they approve mine, she is going to be fine. She will be fine even if they receive her I-485 a day before they approve mine.
2. If my I-485 gets approved before my wife’s I-485 get there, under section 245(k), she has 180 days to send in her I-485 as long as PD is current. And there is no penalty and no other problem with this. She can stay in the country and wait for her I-485 to approve.
3. If I though that it was a grave mistake to apply for my I-485, I can withdraw it before it gets approved and reapply later with my wife’s when I become current again. No problem with this other than paying the fees again.
4. My wife and change her H4 to F1 any time she wants to as long as she goes to school full time. She could be on F1 and apply for I-485 when I become current (I feel uneasy on this one).
Please, let me know if what I listed above is right. These are the only choices that I have ready about. If there are more choices please, let me know that too. I have to make a decision by the end of tomorrow. Thank you all!
realizeit
03-20 02:13 PM
The best time for seeing any good result for lobbying in the next 8 years would be the end of 2008. Precisely, from Nov-02-2008 till the day, the new president swears in.
If you go through the records of the past presidencies, you can see one interesting thing: Whenever the presidency changes from one person to another, that period is the best to make any sweeping changes that can be done administratively. Bill clinton passed many executive orders during the last 1.5 months of his presidency. The reason for this is: the ruling party will not oppose this as the election is over. The new president will also not oppose this as the election is over and the bad blood of any of this action will not fall on him as well. On top of that, the new president need not address any contentious issues as an initiative from his side. If the old president started something, he could always portray that, he is making the situation better.
The best example for this kind of presidential action: There is a proposal from many parts of the political spectrum to lift the cuban embargo. No one is ready to do that as everyone is scared how it will affect them. If the passing president does this during the last 1.5 months, the blame will only fall on the president and it will not fall on the party or the opposition or on the new president. At the same time, the passing president will be portrayed in the history as someone who did some sweeping change.
Once the new president swears in, he won't be in a position to do sweeping changes as there is always a concern for second term, approval rating etc etc.
Well, the best time for lobbying in the next 8 years would be the end of this year, after Nov 2.
If you go through the records of the past presidencies, you can see one interesting thing: Whenever the presidency changes from one person to another, that period is the best to make any sweeping changes that can be done administratively. Bill clinton passed many executive orders during the last 1.5 months of his presidency. The reason for this is: the ruling party will not oppose this as the election is over. The new president will also not oppose this as the election is over and the bad blood of any of this action will not fall on him as well. On top of that, the new president need not address any contentious issues as an initiative from his side. If the old president started something, he could always portray that, he is making the situation better.
The best example for this kind of presidential action: There is a proposal from many parts of the political spectrum to lift the cuban embargo. No one is ready to do that as everyone is scared how it will affect them. If the passing president does this during the last 1.5 months, the blame will only fall on the president and it will not fall on the party or the opposition or on the new president. At the same time, the passing president will be portrayed in the history as someone who did some sweeping change.
Once the new president swears in, he won't be in a position to do sweeping changes as there is always a concern for second term, approval rating etc etc.
Well, the best time for lobbying in the next 8 years would be the end of this year, after Nov 2.