GKBest
09-30 01:35 AM
It seems to me that USCIS are rejecting applications to establish new dates for refiling. Isn't it in their FAQ on Receipt delays that by law, they are required to issue EAD within 90 days from the applications?
I hope I am wrong but they might be doing this deliberately to get around the law.
I hope I am wrong but they might be doing this deliberately to get around the law.
wallpaper Spotted 4 Sale
gc_kaavaali
08-26 04:08 PM
People suggest to work for 6 months...Remember there is no rule to work for 6 months. But just incase if somebody ask at the time of applying for citizenship, you can show that you worked for 6 months.
anyone???
anyone???
jerez_z
11-03 11:43 AM
I'm looking for PHP or ActionScript work. I'm not a designer in any sense of the word, so I can't do any graphical work. I'm just starting out, so my protfolio is lacking but I have done several full blown CMSs lately. I've never gotten a problem I couldn't solve, I just need to prove myself.
2011 2010 Mercedes-Benz S 63 AMG
Blog Feeds
02-08 06:10 PM
In a time when the country is facing a $1.5 trillion deficit and the antis are calling for massive increases in spending on immigration enforcement, it's nice to see someone calling out the immigration prosecutors for what is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. From the Austin American-Statesman: In an order filed Friday, a federal judge in Austin questioned U.S. prosecutors for seeking criminal convictions in court against some illegal immigrants, writing that the practice "presents a cost to the American taxpayer ... that is neither meritorious nor reasonable." The order by U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks comes as his...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/judge-stop-wasting-taxpayer-money-prosecuting-immigration-offenses.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/judge-stop-wasting-taxpayer-money-prosecuting-immigration-offenses.html)
more...
adnan_vijay
04-29 04:28 AM
Please help?
Any advice is much appriciated.
:(
Any advice is much appriciated.
:(
test101
07-08 02:13 PM
I think immigration firms will stay out of it for the sake of the law suit. However companies like MS, oracle, and hospitals maybe should join.
more...
webdzinez
03-06 06:29 AM
Both my wife and I are working on H1B visa.
We are landing in Canada for H1B visa renewal.
However, the nvars.com appointment system allows 1 primary applicatnt and then allows to add dependents to that application. Should I add my wife as a dependent or create an independent primary applicant profile for her since she would be requesting an H1 B renewal as well.
If I create an independent primary applicant profile for her, I may not be able to get the same visa date / appointment for both of us.
Please guide.
Thanks
We are landing in Canada for H1B visa renewal.
However, the nvars.com appointment system allows 1 primary applicatnt and then allows to add dependents to that application. Should I add my wife as a dependent or create an independent primary applicant profile for her since she would be requesting an H1 B renewal as well.
If I create an independent primary applicant profile for her, I may not be able to get the same visa date / appointment for both of us.
Please guide.
Thanks
2010 2006 Mercedes Benz S65 AMG
sk8er
11-28 11:24 PM
Hi,
1. What docs do I need to file I-140 ?
2. Do I need personal tax returns and from what year ?
3. Is 2010 tax return needed ?
1. What docs do I need to file I-140 ?
2. Do I need personal tax returns and from what year ?
3. Is 2010 tax return needed ?
more...
GotGC??
06-25 02:54 PM
yes it is true
Is this True --??
It seems USCIS has set a quota of �X� number of 485 applications till SEP �07.Once that quota reaches, dates will retrogress.
After that 485�s will be processed by PD and not by RD.
Is this True --??
It seems USCIS has set a quota of �X� number of 485 applications till SEP �07.Once that quota reaches, dates will retrogress.
After that 485�s will be processed by PD and not by RD.
hair Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG -
rima1805
12-22 03:01 PM
I need some clarity on this issue. I know AC21 helps switching jobs within the same field/duties, but here is my line of thought... I'm past 2yrs on my H1 and I plan to do a part-time MBA (~3yrs) after which I'd like to be open on the kind of job I do.
Now, my questions are: (1) Does switching to EAD really pause the H1 clock?
(2) Is that triggered by filling a new I-9 form alone, or by entering the US on AP, or both?
(3) I guess, I should be able to apply for a fresh H1 with a new company and switch back from the EAD to new H1, right?
I know I'll lose the GC priority, especially wife's EAD, but I'm debating if it's worth losing my career aspirations? My info: Nov '06 EB2 PD, approved I-140, July 3 I-485 receipt and my present company will file our EAD/APs as long as it is necessary.
Looking for your input..... Thanks!
Now, my questions are: (1) Does switching to EAD really pause the H1 clock?
(2) Is that triggered by filling a new I-9 form alone, or by entering the US on AP, or both?
(3) I guess, I should be able to apply for a fresh H1 with a new company and switch back from the EAD to new H1, right?
I know I'll lose the GC priority, especially wife's EAD, but I'm debating if it's worth losing my career aspirations? My info: Nov '06 EB2 PD, approved I-140, July 3 I-485 receipt and my present company will file our EAD/APs as long as it is necessary.
Looking for your input..... Thanks!
more...
rpat1968
09-06 12:54 AM
My PD is 08 july 2004. ND 08/09/2009 (NSC) and no approval yet. Multiple SLUD's from 4/2/09 - 04/16/09 on dependents and my cases after we sent response to RFE.
Last update was on 04/16/09.
Opened an SR on 09/03/09 and the wait goes on ...
Its furstrating to see the "Inorderly" and "out of turn" approvals ...
I don't want the miss the boat as PD later than me are using up the numbers.
There must be lots of IV members who are in similar situation.
Attorneys please suggest how we should tackle this.
Thx
:confused:
Last update was on 04/16/09.
Opened an SR on 09/03/09 and the wait goes on ...
Its furstrating to see the "Inorderly" and "out of turn" approvals ...
I don't want the miss the boat as PD later than me are using up the numbers.
There must be lots of IV members who are in similar situation.
Attorneys please suggest how we should tackle this.
Thx
:confused:
hot mercedes s65 amg replica by
man-woman-and-gc
04-22 12:50 PM
Can someone please respond?
more...
house Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG
gc??
04-27 10:19 AM
unless your paperwork is shady, the fact that your company is in audit should not affect you. if you have filed for i-485 change jobs........
tattoo Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG Images
chil3
04-13 01:23 PM
it would be in minus.....
GC approvals are getting lesser & lesser...
GC approvals are getting lesser & lesser...
more...
pictures Mercedes S65 AMG
gg123
03-13 08:35 PM
Not true. Please check with your lawyer for these type of queries.
dresses 2008 Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG
gultie2k
09-21 02:09 PM
As per my knowledge, you would need to surrender both your I94 stubs.
more...
makeup 2010 Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG
texas1235
12-04 02:27 PM
Hi All,
I have two questions as below:
1) My company announced that it was acquired by another company and the deal will be closed in early 2008.
My I140 priority date is Sept 21,2007 in EB2 in Texas SC. What should I be doing assuming my I140 will be approved in 6 months time, ie March 2008.
2)Also, my company is a Federal contractor working with the Federal organisation. All employees working for this contractor will always work for this Federal organisation no matter who the contractor is.In other words, the client remains same, but contractor changes.So if this Federal organisation gives this contract to any other comapny other than I am working with, how will my I140 processing be affected.
I have two questions as below:
1) My company announced that it was acquired by another company and the deal will be closed in early 2008.
My I140 priority date is Sept 21,2007 in EB2 in Texas SC. What should I be doing assuming my I140 will be approved in 6 months time, ie March 2008.
2)Also, my company is a Federal contractor working with the Federal organisation. All employees working for this contractor will always work for this Federal organisation no matter who the contractor is.In other words, the client remains same, but contractor changes.So if this Federal organisation gives this contract to any other comapny other than I am working with, how will my I140 processing be affected.
girlfriend Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG -
Robert Kumar
05-21 07:12 PM
Hi All,
One of the threads I read about requirements for I-140 smooth approval.
Please let me know
1.if anybody got any RFE's recently for getting I-140 cleared or processed. If so, what are they asking.
2. How important are salary slips in getting this approved
3. Are they asking for any recently pay stubs, if so, for how much period back in history.
The reason I'm asking this is sometimes we loose pay stubs, and hence I wanted to make sure I have all, in case any is missing.
4. Any risks in getting I-140 premium processed when dates are not close to current.
5. Any other risks.
6. How much time is it taking for regular I140 to get processed.
Any advice to this end is highly appreciated.
Thank You.
Bobby.
One of the threads I read about requirements for I-140 smooth approval.
Please let me know
1.if anybody got any RFE's recently for getting I-140 cleared or processed. If so, what are they asking.
2. How important are salary slips in getting this approved
3. Are they asking for any recently pay stubs, if so, for how much period back in history.
The reason I'm asking this is sometimes we loose pay stubs, and hence I wanted to make sure I have all, in case any is missing.
4. Any risks in getting I-140 premium processed when dates are not close to current.
5. Any other risks.
6. How much time is it taking for regular I140 to get processed.
Any advice to this end is highly appreciated.
Thank You.
Bobby.
hairstyles mercedes cls amg 2009
pappu
11-16 09:27 AM
Hello,
Good article to read
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061115/ap_on_bi_ge/venture_capital_immigrants_1
-M
already discussed yesterday in news article thread. thanks for pointing it out.
Good article to read
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061115/ap_on_bi_ge/venture_capital_immigrants_1
-M
already discussed yesterday in news article thread. thanks for pointing it out.
Blog Feeds
02-16 12:20 PM
The American Immigration Council, an organization that does great work fighting for immigrants, annually honors immigrants of achievement. This year they have selected Cambodian-born Luong Ung who has been the national spokeswoman for Campaign for a Landmine-free World. She's worked on that worthy cause for 13 years. Ms. Ung came to America as a refugee of the "Killing Fields" in her native country and has paid the goodwill back by working on a cause that few would argue is vitally important. Congratulations Ms. Ung.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/02/luong-ung-immigrant-of-the-day-human-rights-activist.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/02/luong-ung-immigrant-of-the-day-human-rights-activist.html)
Macaca
05-19 07:54 AM
3 Months of Tense Talks Led to Immigration Deal (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/washington/19immig.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) By CARL HULSE (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) and ROBERT PEAR (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html), May 19, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Hours before a bipartisan deal on immigration policy was to be announced Thursday, a tenuous compromise was threatening to unravel, and tempers flared once again.
Just off the Senate floor, Senators John McCain of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, both Republicans, exchanged sharp words, with Mr. McCain accusing his colleague of raising arcane legal issues to scuttle the deal. Mr. Cornyn retorted that he was entitled to his view and noted that Mr. McCain had spent more time campaigning for president than negotiating in recent weeks.
The senatorial dust-up, described by witnesses, was just one of the tense moments in remarkable negotiations over the last three months that resulted in this week�s accord. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who oversaw the talks, compared them to a floating craps game, with a changing cast of characters and shifting sites.
Lawmakers and staff members who participated said passions occasionally ran high in the dozens of meetings, with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, sometimes using his temper as a negotiating tactic. Senators who had spent hours anguishing over the smallest details had little patience for colleagues who made brief appearances to offer their views.
�New people came in and wanted to revisit the whole deal,� Mr. Specter said. �That happened all the time. It was very frustrating.�
In the end, negotiators overcame political divisions and some level of distrust to produce the agreement that will be debated in the Senate beginning next week. Lawmakers said they forged bonds partly through the telling of personal stories about their own family roots, as well as long hours spent together and the prospect that the bill might be a last chance at reaching consensus on a major national problem.
�It was like waiting for a baby to be born,� said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, about the negotiations. �On occasion, it was like being in mediation with a divorced couple. It was like being at camp with your buddies. It was feeling like a part of history.�
As difficult as the negotiations were, they might ultimately seem tame compared with the fight the authors of the plan now face. Before the language of the bill was even published, the proposal � a major domestic objective of the Bush administration � was under attack from the right for allowing illegal immigrants to earn citizenship and from the left for dividing families. The offices of the negotiators were under siege from critics who had the phones ringing endlessly.
�It is real easy to demagogue this thing, and some people probably won�t be able to help themselves,� said Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida and another key participant in the talks. �We are going to have to stick together on the fundamentals of this agreement.�
The talks had their genesis in last year�s failure on immigration after House Republicans essentially chose to ignore a bill passed by the Senate that conservatives derided as amnesty since it would have allowed some of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States to remain and eventually qualify to be citizens.
President Bush helped plant the seeds of this year�s negotiations on Jan. 8, at a White House event celebrating the fifth anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act. Mr. Bush pulled aside Senator Kennedy, and they went into a room off the Oval Office to talk about immigration.
A month later, Senator Jon Kyl, a conservative Republican from Arizona who would become an important figure in striking the deal, began meeting with other Republicans and administration officials to explore ways to find a legislative response to an issue with potent political and humanitarian ramifications.
When those talks progressed far enough, the Republicans on March 28 invited in Democrats like Mr. Kennedy, a longtime advocate of immigration changes, and Senators Ken Salazar of Colorado and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. What followed was a series of meetings around the Capitol, typically on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights, as the lawmakers, staff members, White House officials and two or three cabinet secretaries immersed themselves in immigration rules as part of unusually direct high-level negotiations.
�To take an issue and basically start from scratch and write it from the bottom up is something I haven�t seen done in a really long time,� said Candida Wolff, chief of Congressional relations for the White House.
The first big hurdle was cleared a few weeks ago when the negotiators settled on what they called the grand bargain, the main outlines of the issues they were going to address. Major elements included border security improvements and other measures that would have to be undertaken before new citizenship programs were put in place; potential legal status for millions of illegal immigrants; new visas for hundreds of thousands of temporary workers; and clearing a backlog of family applicants for residency.
Republicans also won support for a new �merit-based system of immigration,� which would give more weight to job skills and education and less to family ties. The negotiators decided to adopt a point system to evaluate the qualifications of foreign citizens seeking permission to immigrate to the United States.
No question was too small for the senators. They asked: How many points should be awarded to a refrigerator mechanic with a certificate from a community college?
The negotiations were a roller coaster ride that continued until the deal was announced Thursday, with negotiators expressing despair one day and optimism the next.
�Wednesday evening was one of the most important moments,� Mr. Kennedy said in an interview. �The mood and the atmosphere were good. You got a feeling that maybe this would all be possible. But on Thursday morning, it suddenly deteriorated again.� He told his colleagues that �it�s imperative that we announce an agreement� on Thursday afternoon, or else they could lose momentum. The announcement was made.
In some respects, the lawmakers benefited from the Congressional focus on the Iraq war as they were able to negotiate below the radar, avoiding the disclosure of every twist and turn in the talks and pressure from influential interest groups. Those involved also said the deep participation of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was vital.
The senators who put together the bill say they have their own reservations about aspects of it. And some of the regular participants, including Senators Cornyn and Menendez, have backed away from endorsing it. But those who have embraced the bill say they intend to see it through.
�We made a pact,� said Mr. Specter, who was referred to as Mr. Chairman even though Democrats control Congress. �We will stick together even on provisions we don�t like. We are a long way from home in getting this through the Senate.�
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Hours before a bipartisan deal on immigration policy was to be announced Thursday, a tenuous compromise was threatening to unravel, and tempers flared once again.
Just off the Senate floor, Senators John McCain of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, both Republicans, exchanged sharp words, with Mr. McCain accusing his colleague of raising arcane legal issues to scuttle the deal. Mr. Cornyn retorted that he was entitled to his view and noted that Mr. McCain had spent more time campaigning for president than negotiating in recent weeks.
The senatorial dust-up, described by witnesses, was just one of the tense moments in remarkable negotiations over the last three months that resulted in this week�s accord. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who oversaw the talks, compared them to a floating craps game, with a changing cast of characters and shifting sites.
Lawmakers and staff members who participated said passions occasionally ran high in the dozens of meetings, with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, sometimes using his temper as a negotiating tactic. Senators who had spent hours anguishing over the smallest details had little patience for colleagues who made brief appearances to offer their views.
�New people came in and wanted to revisit the whole deal,� Mr. Specter said. �That happened all the time. It was very frustrating.�
In the end, negotiators overcame political divisions and some level of distrust to produce the agreement that will be debated in the Senate beginning next week. Lawmakers said they forged bonds partly through the telling of personal stories about their own family roots, as well as long hours spent together and the prospect that the bill might be a last chance at reaching consensus on a major national problem.
�It was like waiting for a baby to be born,� said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, about the negotiations. �On occasion, it was like being in mediation with a divorced couple. It was like being at camp with your buddies. It was feeling like a part of history.�
As difficult as the negotiations were, they might ultimately seem tame compared with the fight the authors of the plan now face. Before the language of the bill was even published, the proposal � a major domestic objective of the Bush administration � was under attack from the right for allowing illegal immigrants to earn citizenship and from the left for dividing families. The offices of the negotiators were under siege from critics who had the phones ringing endlessly.
�It is real easy to demagogue this thing, and some people probably won�t be able to help themselves,� said Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida and another key participant in the talks. �We are going to have to stick together on the fundamentals of this agreement.�
The talks had their genesis in last year�s failure on immigration after House Republicans essentially chose to ignore a bill passed by the Senate that conservatives derided as amnesty since it would have allowed some of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States to remain and eventually qualify to be citizens.
President Bush helped plant the seeds of this year�s negotiations on Jan. 8, at a White House event celebrating the fifth anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act. Mr. Bush pulled aside Senator Kennedy, and they went into a room off the Oval Office to talk about immigration.
A month later, Senator Jon Kyl, a conservative Republican from Arizona who would become an important figure in striking the deal, began meeting with other Republicans and administration officials to explore ways to find a legislative response to an issue with potent political and humanitarian ramifications.
When those talks progressed far enough, the Republicans on March 28 invited in Democrats like Mr. Kennedy, a longtime advocate of immigration changes, and Senators Ken Salazar of Colorado and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. What followed was a series of meetings around the Capitol, typically on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights, as the lawmakers, staff members, White House officials and two or three cabinet secretaries immersed themselves in immigration rules as part of unusually direct high-level negotiations.
�To take an issue and basically start from scratch and write it from the bottom up is something I haven�t seen done in a really long time,� said Candida Wolff, chief of Congressional relations for the White House.
The first big hurdle was cleared a few weeks ago when the negotiators settled on what they called the grand bargain, the main outlines of the issues they were going to address. Major elements included border security improvements and other measures that would have to be undertaken before new citizenship programs were put in place; potential legal status for millions of illegal immigrants; new visas for hundreds of thousands of temporary workers; and clearing a backlog of family applicants for residency.
Republicans also won support for a new �merit-based system of immigration,� which would give more weight to job skills and education and less to family ties. The negotiators decided to adopt a point system to evaluate the qualifications of foreign citizens seeking permission to immigrate to the United States.
No question was too small for the senators. They asked: How many points should be awarded to a refrigerator mechanic with a certificate from a community college?
The negotiations were a roller coaster ride that continued until the deal was announced Thursday, with negotiators expressing despair one day and optimism the next.
�Wednesday evening was one of the most important moments,� Mr. Kennedy said in an interview. �The mood and the atmosphere were good. You got a feeling that maybe this would all be possible. But on Thursday morning, it suddenly deteriorated again.� He told his colleagues that �it�s imperative that we announce an agreement� on Thursday afternoon, or else they could lose momentum. The announcement was made.
In some respects, the lawmakers benefited from the Congressional focus on the Iraq war as they were able to negotiate below the radar, avoiding the disclosure of every twist and turn in the talks and pressure from influential interest groups. Those involved also said the deep participation of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was vital.
The senators who put together the bill say they have their own reservations about aspects of it. And some of the regular participants, including Senators Cornyn and Menendez, have backed away from endorsing it. But those who have embraced the bill say they intend to see it through.
�We made a pact,� said Mr. Specter, who was referred to as Mr. Chairman even though Democrats control Congress. �We will stick together even on provisions we don�t like. We are a long way from home in getting this through the Senate.�
No comments:
Post a Comment