engineer
06-17 04:02 PM
Yes. you can file i140 and 485 concurrently
wallpaper hairstyles quotes on life and
wandmaker
11-19 12:19 AM
You can use "nunc-pro-tunc" to get H4 extension. There has been lot of information and discussion at http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15408
HarshJ
03-17 05:26 PM
Hi,
I have a pending I-140 (RD March 12, 2007) and I-485 (PD Sept 2001, India EB-3, Current in April 2008).
My wife and I, currently have EADs. My wife has been offered a job and they need a Green Card when she joins in May 2008.
Is there a way to expedite the processing of I-140 and I-485, so that we do get our Green Cards in next month or so?
I have a pending I-140 (RD March 12, 2007) and I-485 (PD Sept 2001, India EB-3, Current in April 2008).
My wife and I, currently have EADs. My wife has been offered a job and they need a Green Card when she joins in May 2008.
Is there a way to expedite the processing of I-140 and I-485, so that we do get our Green Cards in next month or so?
2011 quotes on life tattoos. quotes
rjain15
09-12 11:13 AM
Hi,
I have applied for I-140 in Oct 2006 and hvn't recd I-140 yet (Nebraska)
My 485/EAD checks got encashed today. My questions is do I need I-140 before FP or EAD card.
thanx
RJ
I have applied for I-140 in Oct 2006 and hvn't recd I-140 yet (Nebraska)
My 485/EAD checks got encashed today. My questions is do I need I-140 before FP or EAD card.
thanx
RJ
more...
Macaca
08-05 07:42 AM
A Polarized, and Polarizing, Congress (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301949.html) By David S. Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com), August 5, 2007
The distinguishing characteristic of this Congress was on vivid display the other day when the House debated a bill to expand the federal program that provides health insurance for children of the working poor.
Even when it is performing a useful service, this Congress manages to look ugly and mean-spirited. So much blood has been spilled, so much bile stockpiled on Capitol Hill, that no good deed goes untarnished.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a 10-year-old proven success. Originally a product of bipartisan consensus, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, it was one of the last domestic achievements before Monica and impeachment fever seized control.
It is up for renewal this year and suddenly has become a bone of contention. President Bush underfunded it in his budget; the $4.8 billion extra he proposed spending in the next five years would not finance insurance even for all those who are currently being served.
But when the Senate Finance Committee proposed boosting the funding to $35 billion -- financed by a hefty hike in tobacco taxes -- Bush threatened a veto, and he raised the rhetorical stakes by claiming that the measure was a step toward "government health insurance."
That was surprising news to Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, two staunch conservatives who had joined in sponsoring the Senate bill, which the Senate Finance Committee supported 17 to 4.
But rather than meet the president's unwise challenge with a strong bipartisan alternative, the House Democratic leadership decided to raise the partisan stakes even higher by bringing out a $50 billion bill that not only would expand SCHIP but would also curtail the private Medicare benefit delivery system that Bush favors.
To add insult to injury, House Democratic leaders then took a leaf from the old Republican playbook and brought the swollen bill to the floor with minimal time for debate and denied Republicans any opportunity to offer amendments.
The result was undisguised fury -- and some really ugly exchanges on the floor. The worst, given voice by former speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, among others, was the charge that the Democrats were opening the program to illegal immigrants. The National Republican Congressional Committee distributed that distortion wholesale across the country in a flurry of news releases playing to the same kind of nativist prejudice that sank the immigration reform bill. In fact, governors of both parties support the certification system included in the bill for assuring that families meet citizenship requirements; the governors know that too many legal residents have been wrongly disqualified because they could not locate their birth certificates.
In the end, the House bill passed on a near-party-line vote, 225 to 204, far short of the margin that would be needed to override the promised Bush veto. That means the program will probably have to be given a temporary renewal before the Sept. 30 deadline, and eventually Democrats and the White House will negotiate an agreement.
So it will go down as one more example of unnecessary conflict. No rational human being could explain why a program that both parties support and both want to continue could ignite such a fight.
But that is Washington in this era of polarized politics. As Congress heads out for its August recess, it has accomplished about as much as is usually the case at this stage. It passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and an overdue but healthy package of ethics reforms. It moved some routine legislation.
But what the public has seen and heard is mainly the ugly sound of partisan warfare. The Senate let a handful of dissident Republicans highjack the immigration bill. Its Democratic leadership marched up the hill and back down on repeated futile efforts to circumscribe American involvement in Iraq, then shamefully pulled back from a final vote when a constructive Republican alternative to the Bush policy was on offer.
The less-than-vital issue of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys has occupied more time and attention than the threat of a terrorist enclave in Pakistan -- or the unchecked growth of long-term debts that could sink Medicare and Social Security.
And when this Congress had an opportunity to take a relatively simple, incremental step to extend health insurance to a vulnerable group, the members managed to make a mess of it.
It's no wonder the approval ratings of Congress are so dismal.
The distinguishing characteristic of this Congress was on vivid display the other day when the House debated a bill to expand the federal program that provides health insurance for children of the working poor.
Even when it is performing a useful service, this Congress manages to look ugly and mean-spirited. So much blood has been spilled, so much bile stockpiled on Capitol Hill, that no good deed goes untarnished.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a 10-year-old proven success. Originally a product of bipartisan consensus, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, it was one of the last domestic achievements before Monica and impeachment fever seized control.
It is up for renewal this year and suddenly has become a bone of contention. President Bush underfunded it in his budget; the $4.8 billion extra he proposed spending in the next five years would not finance insurance even for all those who are currently being served.
But when the Senate Finance Committee proposed boosting the funding to $35 billion -- financed by a hefty hike in tobacco taxes -- Bush threatened a veto, and he raised the rhetorical stakes by claiming that the measure was a step toward "government health insurance."
That was surprising news to Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, two staunch conservatives who had joined in sponsoring the Senate bill, which the Senate Finance Committee supported 17 to 4.
But rather than meet the president's unwise challenge with a strong bipartisan alternative, the House Democratic leadership decided to raise the partisan stakes even higher by bringing out a $50 billion bill that not only would expand SCHIP but would also curtail the private Medicare benefit delivery system that Bush favors.
To add insult to injury, House Democratic leaders then took a leaf from the old Republican playbook and brought the swollen bill to the floor with minimal time for debate and denied Republicans any opportunity to offer amendments.
The result was undisguised fury -- and some really ugly exchanges on the floor. The worst, given voice by former speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, among others, was the charge that the Democrats were opening the program to illegal immigrants. The National Republican Congressional Committee distributed that distortion wholesale across the country in a flurry of news releases playing to the same kind of nativist prejudice that sank the immigration reform bill. In fact, governors of both parties support the certification system included in the bill for assuring that families meet citizenship requirements; the governors know that too many legal residents have been wrongly disqualified because they could not locate their birth certificates.
In the end, the House bill passed on a near-party-line vote, 225 to 204, far short of the margin that would be needed to override the promised Bush veto. That means the program will probably have to be given a temporary renewal before the Sept. 30 deadline, and eventually Democrats and the White House will negotiate an agreement.
So it will go down as one more example of unnecessary conflict. No rational human being could explain why a program that both parties support and both want to continue could ignite such a fight.
But that is Washington in this era of polarized politics. As Congress heads out for its August recess, it has accomplished about as much as is usually the case at this stage. It passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and an overdue but healthy package of ethics reforms. It moved some routine legislation.
But what the public has seen and heard is mainly the ugly sound of partisan warfare. The Senate let a handful of dissident Republicans highjack the immigration bill. Its Democratic leadership marched up the hill and back down on repeated futile efforts to circumscribe American involvement in Iraq, then shamefully pulled back from a final vote when a constructive Republican alternative to the Bush policy was on offer.
The less-than-vital issue of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys has occupied more time and attention than the threat of a terrorist enclave in Pakistan -- or the unchecked growth of long-term debts that could sink Medicare and Social Security.
And when this Congress had an opportunity to take a relatively simple, incremental step to extend health insurance to a vulnerable group, the members managed to make a mess of it.
It's no wonder the approval ratings of Congress are so dismal.
pghodgao
08-24 12:25 PM
Hello,
I need to renew my H1 for the 9th year and was wondering if I need to pay the ACWIA fee of $1500. It seems employers who are filing for a 2nd extension are exempt from paying. Does it apply also to cases beyond the 2nd extension?
Thanks to all in advance.
I need to renew my H1 for the 9th year and was wondering if I need to pay the ACWIA fee of $1500. It seems employers who are filing for a 2nd extension are exempt from paying. Does it apply also to cases beyond the 2nd extension?
Thanks to all in advance.
more...
jysharma
10-18 04:29 PM
Hi,
My labour and I40 are approved and PD is 12/07 for EB2.
My H1B 6th year expires on 10/10
I am thinking of changing companies. The job will be the same.
My questions are:
1) Can I use labour or approved I140 from old company to new company since the job will be the same or does the new company have to go through the entire labour and I140 process again.
2) Since I am already at the end of my fourth year of H1B, is there enough time for the new company to apply for labour and I140 since I believe the GC process should start by beginning of 5th year for H1B extension.
3) Can I use the old company PD for the new labour and I140 or will the PD be new as well.
Thanks for your replies.
Waiting eagerly
Yogesh
My labour and I40 are approved and PD is 12/07 for EB2.
My H1B 6th year expires on 10/10
I am thinking of changing companies. The job will be the same.
My questions are:
1) Can I use labour or approved I140 from old company to new company since the job will be the same or does the new company have to go through the entire labour and I140 process again.
2) Since I am already at the end of my fourth year of H1B, is there enough time for the new company to apply for labour and I140 since I believe the GC process should start by beginning of 5th year for H1B extension.
3) Can I use the old company PD for the new labour and I140 or will the PD be new as well.
Thanks for your replies.
Waiting eagerly
Yogesh
2010 tattoo quotes about life. famous tattoo quotes about
keerthisagar
09-21 10:36 AM
Bridge Collapses at Commonwealth Games (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/sports/22iht-GAMES.html?_r=1&hp)
more...
kirupa
10-31 06:22 AM
Added :P
hair tattoo ideas quotes on life.
skv
06-22 11:06 AM
Good Morning Folks,
How about this ? Lets say your consulting firm is ready to file your I-485 upon lots of restriction such as two year agreement and to spend around 10 gran.
While the big firm who has filed the PERM and waiting for the approval. In this case, can we do both the cases to see which is better upon the current situation.
This will help few of our folks and your thoughts are always appreciated.
Thanks a lot guys.
How about this ? Lets say your consulting firm is ready to file your I-485 upon lots of restriction such as two year agreement and to spend around 10 gran.
While the big firm who has filed the PERM and waiting for the approval. In this case, can we do both the cases to see which is better upon the current situation.
This will help few of our folks and your thoughts are always appreciated.
Thanks a lot guys.
more...
nmdial
03-31 12:13 PM
I initially voted in favour of this, but on further reflection, I think this is bad policy and urge others to not support this.
Giving I-485 benefits to people without current PDs is a bad idea. It creates a class of immigrants who are neither non-immigrant visa holders (h1b) nor are they lawful permanent residents (i-551) with a set of rights that falls into neither category. The AoS pending status is intended as a short-duration temporary "gap" coverage for people who are a matter of months from having actual I-551 rights.
Essentially, this proposal aims to make every month into the July 2007 fiasco. In addition, and this is the truly horrible part of it, relieves US employers of the pressure and costs they feel now, extending H1Bs every 3 years. That means that the only allies that legal EB immigrants have (US Employers who require their services) are detached from the immigrants themselves...they no longer have a dog in the hunt, and will stop whatever pressure they are bringing to bear now upon Congresscritters and Senators to increase the number of EB visas available.
Disconnecting the interests of foreign-national employees from their US employers will weaken the political position of the foreign-national employees. We cannot vote or contribute to campaigns, our employers however, can do both. If employees are shifted to EADs and APs, with no further involvement of employers in their immigration status needed, then those employers become disconnected from the process, and the one and only ally the legal immigrant has is no longer interested. That's a horrible thing for the immigrant to advocate.
I strongly urge IV to back away from this proposal, as it is not in the long-term interests of the EB Immigrant community. I urge IV to instead focus their resources on items that will help immigrants long term, like increasing the number of EB visas available through initiatives like eliminating the DV program and allocating the visas to EB applicants.
Thanks for your insight. This is another perspective and it demands further discussion and analysis. The wait time between filing I-485 and receiving the green card is already beyond the norm and a lot of companies are aware of this. Imagine the wait times for the people who haven't yet been able to file for their Adjustment of Status. Wouldn't it help them (and their dependents) if they are at least allowed to file for their AOS? I invite the members to provide their perspectives on the issues raised by JeffDG above. Please do not attack each other. Let us fight together in lieu of fighting each other..
Giving I-485 benefits to people without current PDs is a bad idea. It creates a class of immigrants who are neither non-immigrant visa holders (h1b) nor are they lawful permanent residents (i-551) with a set of rights that falls into neither category. The AoS pending status is intended as a short-duration temporary "gap" coverage for people who are a matter of months from having actual I-551 rights.
Essentially, this proposal aims to make every month into the July 2007 fiasco. In addition, and this is the truly horrible part of it, relieves US employers of the pressure and costs they feel now, extending H1Bs every 3 years. That means that the only allies that legal EB immigrants have (US Employers who require their services) are detached from the immigrants themselves...they no longer have a dog in the hunt, and will stop whatever pressure they are bringing to bear now upon Congresscritters and Senators to increase the number of EB visas available.
Disconnecting the interests of foreign-national employees from their US employers will weaken the political position of the foreign-national employees. We cannot vote or contribute to campaigns, our employers however, can do both. If employees are shifted to EADs and APs, with no further involvement of employers in their immigration status needed, then those employers become disconnected from the process, and the one and only ally the legal immigrant has is no longer interested. That's a horrible thing for the immigrant to advocate.
I strongly urge IV to back away from this proposal, as it is not in the long-term interests of the EB Immigrant community. I urge IV to instead focus their resources on items that will help immigrants long term, like increasing the number of EB visas available through initiatives like eliminating the DV program and allocating the visas to EB applicants.
Thanks for your insight. This is another perspective and it demands further discussion and analysis. The wait time between filing I-485 and receiving the green card is already beyond the norm and a lot of companies are aware of this. Imagine the wait times for the people who haven't yet been able to file for their Adjustment of Status. Wouldn't it help them (and their dependents) if they are at least allowed to file for their AOS? I invite the members to provide their perspectives on the issues raised by JeffDG above. Please do not attack each other. Let us fight together in lieu of fighting each other..
hot life tattoo quotes for girls.
msadiqali
10-06 01:32 AM
Finally some movement from GCC states to satisfy their peoples wishes
The demise of the dollar - Business News, Business - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html)
The demise of the dollar - Business News, Business - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html)
more...
house hair famous tattoo quotes
Blog Feeds
05-05 01:30 PM
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, appointed by President Reagan, recently made comments on the new law in her home state of Arizona: In a question-and-answer session after a speech to alumni at St. Ignatius College Preparatory School - from which her late husband, John, graduated in 1947 - O'Connor avoided passing legal judgment on the far-reaching law, which would make it a crime for immigrants to be in Arizona without valid residency papers. Still, she said, Arizona 'may have gone a little too far in its authority, in encouraging local law enforcement officers to take action' against anyone...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/sandra-day-oconnor-criticizes-arizona-law.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/sandra-day-oconnor-criticizes-arizona-law.html)
tattoo Tattoo Ideas: Quotes on Life
vina92
11-30 08:27 PM
I have a question regarding location change with same employer. I have labor approved on EB2 India with PD 01/2005. I am employed with a big health care firm which has various locations in the region. I'd like to move to another location which is 30 miles away from my present site. I140 is pending with the same employer. I have also posed this question to my lawyer but appreciate greatly if anyone knows answer to this. Will this affect my GC?
more...
pictures tattoo quotes about life.
gc28262
02-06 04:29 PM
Just need some suggestion:
.................................
so if i lose my job.. can i go to H4.. even though i have stayed here for more than 6 years..
If you have never been on H4, you can be on H4 for another 6 years.
H1B 6 year and H4 6 year have been decoupled. Please search murthy.com bulletins
.................................
so if i lose my job.. can i go to H4.. even though i have stayed here for more than 6 years..
If you have never been on H4, you can be on H4 for another 6 years.
H1B 6 year and H4 6 year have been decoupled. Please search murthy.com bulletins
dresses hair famous tattoo quotes
samuel5028
03-14 02:37 AM
The Hyderabad Consulate will probably only service AP applicants.If a person from pune tries to bypass that office and wishes to get the work done at Hyderabad merely to expedite,the Hyderabad office may even summarily reject the application.Take your chances but be
prepared for all eventualities.
prepared for all eventualities.
more...
makeup famous tattoo quotes about
fcres
07-03 04:54 PM
There are already two threads if you want to see whats going on
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4856
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5983
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4856
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5983
girlfriend small tattoo quotes on life.
vallabhu
08-05 10:43 AM
Guys, My appeal "I290B" for a denied I140 under EB3 category was submitted on March 5th 2008 to TEXAS service center AAO.
I have 2 questions in tracking the application
1) Are all I290B's processed initially where I140 is denied and then later sent to DC office, or completely processed by TSC.
2) If the applications are sent to DC after review by TSC. how long does TSC take to review the application before forwarding to DC and how long will DC require to process the application to close the case (I know total is 14 months for EB3)
I have 2 questions in tracking the application
1) Are all I290B's processed initially where I140 is denied and then later sent to DC office, or completely processed by TSC.
2) If the applications are sent to DC after review by TSC. how long does TSC take to review the application before forwarding to DC and how long will DC require to process the application to close the case (I know total is 14 months for EB3)
hairstyles quotes about life for tattoos
indianabacklog
04-14 10:31 AM
Your post raises so many questions it is hard to know where to start.
The obvious one is if you do not have an employer, how have you got an H1B visa since it is the employer who petitions for it?
Second thought, where are you right now? Still in your own country or the USA?
In response to your question about a green card. If you are going to follow the employment based route, by definition, you are going to need an employer to get this process rolling. Starting with PERM labor certification.
The obvious one is if you do not have an employer, how have you got an H1B visa since it is the employer who petitions for it?
Second thought, where are you right now? Still in your own country or the USA?
In response to your question about a green card. If you are going to follow the employment based route, by definition, you are going to need an employer to get this process rolling. Starting with PERM labor certification.
vicente
10-11 09:08 PM
Good question. I'm not sure if the two-year home residency requirement applies to tourist visas.
But if your J-1 program isn't subject to the two year residency requirement, I don't see why there would be a problem.
Warning: I am not a lawyer.
But if your J-1 program isn't subject to the two year residency requirement, I don't see why there would be a problem.
Warning: I am not a lawyer.
saravanaraj.sathya
07-30 03:06 PM
Guys,
I am planning to use AC21 for 180 days. Please reply to this poll so that we can find out how many of us will take advantage of this situation.
I am planning to use AC21 for 180 days. Please reply to this poll so that we can find out how many of us will take advantage of this situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment