MArch172008
05-24 03:02 AM
How much time it is taking for I140 processing ?
Is there any hope in near future for priority dates to be current?
regards
Is there any hope in near future for priority dates to be current?
regards
wallpaper vista wallpapers nature
bomber
08-16 06:28 PM
Does anyone have any idea what the code stands for.
485 RD 7/2
ND 7/30
FP date 8/28 for both me any my husband
FP code 3
Code 3 means "Fingerprinting, signatures and photos will be taken"
485 RD 7/2
ND 7/30
FP date 8/28 for both me any my husband
FP code 3
Code 3 means "Fingerprinting, signatures and photos will be taken"
meridiani.planum
10-12 08:37 PM
Hi Friends/Gurus,
My attorney received an RFE on H1B extension last week.
The details of my case are
2004-Oct-01 -- My H1B started
2004-Nov-20 -- I entered the country on H1B for the first time
2008-Dec-25 -- Date till my current work authorization (I-797) is valid
2010-Sep-30 -- Date I complete 6 years under H1B. Since I entered only on 2004-Nov-20 my attorney said my 6 years is up to 2010 Nov 20th
2008-August-10th -- My attorney applied for my H1B extension under normal processing. He requested until 2011-Dec-25th (3 years from current I-797) expiration on the petition instead of 2010-Nov-20th
2008-Oct-8th -- Attorney received the RFE
When the petition for H1B extension was prepared on 2008 July, I asked the employer why the period of intended employment is put as 2011-Dec-25th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. The employer replied that its a usual practice to request 3 years of H1B extension and USCIS will only give the maximum possible
What's the RFE
Now we got the RFE and it says we have requested for an extension beyond 6 years and for getting that we should have a labor certification pending more than 365 days or an approved I-140.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a labor cert with priority date of 2006 August which was approved but the I-140 was denied on EB2 category for not meeting 5 years of progressive experience. Earlier this year in 2008 April we have filed another EB3 I-140 for the same 2006 Aug Labor
On the H1B extension petition attorney had requested until 2011-Nov 20th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. I saw the H1B extension application and it says Dates of Intended employment as 12/25/2008 till 12/25/2011
Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period only until 11/20/2010?
The attorney contacted me and said they are going to send a copy of my I-94 as of Nov 20th 2004 and a copy of my immigration port of entry stamp on my passport stamped on nov 20th 2004 and request to give the extension. The attorney mentioned that the I-94 and port of entry seal will help USCIS to determine the maximum period of H1B that can be granted
My worry
My worry is INS rejecting the petition saying these kinds of changes in dates (2010 nov instead of 2011 dec) cannot be done in the midde of the process and this will be rejected and we need to file again a new petition. I know that we can work until 240 days if we file for an extension on time. I want to get this extension obtained before 2008 dec 25th so that I don't have to go through a chance of denial after 2008 dec 25th which can put my status into illegal sometimes. I am thinking of premium processign also if the results of the RFE doesn't come by next month (November).
My questions
1) Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period of employment only until 11/20/2010 on the original petition?
2) Please advice me on how we should resopnd to the RFE and what date we should request for.
3) Should we ask USCIS to give extension until 2010 sep 30th if they don't agree for 2010 nov 20th? Does this has to be clearly mentioned in the RFE response letter?
Your help very much appreciated. Please reply to this as my legal stay is based on this.
based on what you have said you are only eligible for an H1 until 2010 for now (because your current PERM application is not old enough to give you the 7th year). To me it looks like your lawyer appears to have screwed up. Even if you had gotten an extension till 2011, it could potentially have landed you in trouble later if USCIS ever goes over these dates again (485 approval time).
In the RFE response ask him to explain that the date should actually be 2010, and see if USCIS is willing to accept the petition as-is (the new period is smaller than the old one in your LCA, so I assume it should be ok).
Ask your lawyer on what basis he expected them to approve it upto 2011? Also, if he accepts it was his fault, ask him if he can make it up to you by making it premium processing and paying the $1k. This is a screwup on his side which is making things needlessly messy for you, thats the least he can do.
My attorney received an RFE on H1B extension last week.
The details of my case are
2004-Oct-01 -- My H1B started
2004-Nov-20 -- I entered the country on H1B for the first time
2008-Dec-25 -- Date till my current work authorization (I-797) is valid
2010-Sep-30 -- Date I complete 6 years under H1B. Since I entered only on 2004-Nov-20 my attorney said my 6 years is up to 2010 Nov 20th
2008-August-10th -- My attorney applied for my H1B extension under normal processing. He requested until 2011-Dec-25th (3 years from current I-797) expiration on the petition instead of 2010-Nov-20th
2008-Oct-8th -- Attorney received the RFE
When the petition for H1B extension was prepared on 2008 July, I asked the employer why the period of intended employment is put as 2011-Dec-25th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. The employer replied that its a usual practice to request 3 years of H1B extension and USCIS will only give the maximum possible
What's the RFE
Now we got the RFE and it says we have requested for an extension beyond 6 years and for getting that we should have a labor certification pending more than 365 days or an approved I-140.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a labor cert with priority date of 2006 August which was approved but the I-140 was denied on EB2 category for not meeting 5 years of progressive experience. Earlier this year in 2008 April we have filed another EB3 I-140 for the same 2006 Aug Labor
On the H1B extension petition attorney had requested until 2011-Nov 20th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. I saw the H1B extension application and it says Dates of Intended employment as 12/25/2008 till 12/25/2011
Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period only until 11/20/2010?
The attorney contacted me and said they are going to send a copy of my I-94 as of Nov 20th 2004 and a copy of my immigration port of entry stamp on my passport stamped on nov 20th 2004 and request to give the extension. The attorney mentioned that the I-94 and port of entry seal will help USCIS to determine the maximum period of H1B that can be granted
My worry
My worry is INS rejecting the petition saying these kinds of changes in dates (2010 nov instead of 2011 dec) cannot be done in the midde of the process and this will be rejected and we need to file again a new petition. I know that we can work until 240 days if we file for an extension on time. I want to get this extension obtained before 2008 dec 25th so that I don't have to go through a chance of denial after 2008 dec 25th which can put my status into illegal sometimes. I am thinking of premium processign also if the results of the RFE doesn't come by next month (November).
My questions
1) Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period of employment only until 11/20/2010 on the original petition?
2) Please advice me on how we should resopnd to the RFE and what date we should request for.
3) Should we ask USCIS to give extension until 2010 sep 30th if they don't agree for 2010 nov 20th? Does this has to be clearly mentioned in the RFE response letter?
Your help very much appreciated. Please reply to this as my legal stay is based on this.
based on what you have said you are only eligible for an H1 until 2010 for now (because your current PERM application is not old enough to give you the 7th year). To me it looks like your lawyer appears to have screwed up. Even if you had gotten an extension till 2011, it could potentially have landed you in trouble later if USCIS ever goes over these dates again (485 approval time).
In the RFE response ask him to explain that the date should actually be 2010, and see if USCIS is willing to accept the petition as-is (the new period is smaller than the old one in your LCA, so I assume it should be ok).
Ask your lawyer on what basis he expected them to approve it upto 2011? Also, if he accepts it was his fault, ask him if he can make it up to you by making it premium processing and paying the $1k. This is a screwup on his side which is making things needlessly messy for you, thats the least he can do.
2011 Best Vista
ram_ram
02-11 09:00 PM
My situation would answer your questions.
My passport expiry date is Apr 14, 2007. I came back from India after a vacation on Jan 21 2007. My H1-B extension is valid until sep 1 2007.
The immigration officer at the POE stopped me and said he would not allow me in since my passport is not even valid for 6 months. I argued with him saying I can renew it at the embassy in 1 day, if i go in person and am planning to do that. He disagreed and called his supervisor. Somehow his supervisor referred some rule book and said India is in some Club and so I should be allowed inside with a I-94 marked as VOPP. So the officer issued me a I-94 until Apr 4+10 days which is my passport expiry date. Now I applied for my passport renewal and then I should apply for a H1-B extension.
Thanks.
Thank you tdasara, I hope mine works out the same way as yours. Could you tell me when this took place, and also how much gap there was between your passport expiry and H1 visa expiry dates?
One of my best friends had something similar happen to her, but her passport is set to expire just two months ahead of her I-94/H1 expiration date. I wonder if the fact that it was just two months apart made a difference to the officer when he decided on her I-94 date. As you know, in my case, my current passport will expire two years before my H-1.
msp1976, I found out that it would take at least a month to get a new passport (is this right?), and I did not have time for it. I'll be sure to post my experience here.
Thank you!
My passport expiry date is Apr 14, 2007. I came back from India after a vacation on Jan 21 2007. My H1-B extension is valid until sep 1 2007.
The immigration officer at the POE stopped me and said he would not allow me in since my passport is not even valid for 6 months. I argued with him saying I can renew it at the embassy in 1 day, if i go in person and am planning to do that. He disagreed and called his supervisor. Somehow his supervisor referred some rule book and said India is in some Club and so I should be allowed inside with a I-94 marked as VOPP. So the officer issued me a I-94 until Apr 4+10 days which is my passport expiry date. Now I applied for my passport renewal and then I should apply for a H1-B extension.
Thanks.
Thank you tdasara, I hope mine works out the same way as yours. Could you tell me when this took place, and also how much gap there was between your passport expiry and H1 visa expiry dates?
One of my best friends had something similar happen to her, but her passport is set to expire just two months ahead of her I-94/H1 expiration date. I wonder if the fact that it was just two months apart made a difference to the officer when he decided on her I-94 date. As you know, in my case, my current passport will expire two years before my H-1.
msp1976, I found out that it would take at least a month to get a new passport (is this right?), and I did not have time for it. I'll be sure to post my experience here.
Thank you!
more...
NolaIndian32
09-01 11:12 AM
Guys, i don't know how USCIS works, i don't care at this point in time. Just wanted to share with this group, that i did not get a 2nd FP notice. My FP was done on 9/28/07. And as Fromnaija said earlier in this thread, a 2nd FP may not be required if FPs were stored in Biometric Storage System - well, i got my "card production ordered" e-mail today. Hope to have the green card in hand by the end of the month. So again, not having a 2nd FP notice may not be an issue.
Best of luck to all,
Nola
Best of luck to all,
Nola
GCcomesoon
03-16 03:54 PM
Hi
It seems like we all have to wait till march 27th to understand the impact .Please make us understand how this makes good news for legal immigrants.There is no mention of any thing here.Frankly in the last 10 days after this bill started getting discussed, we have hardly heard anyone speaking about us.Its only guest worker,illegal immigration,border security.
Its not being pessimistic here ,Please give us some realistic picture.
We all understand & appreciate each other efforts,time,money spend in this cause.Especially hats off to Voice team.
Lets hope we all the see the fruits of "labor" soon
Thanks
GCcomesoon
__________________________________________________ _______________
pilid
Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to be pessimist but I tend to agree with learning01 that Nothing is going to happen. This is election year and it will be difficult to get such sweeping and comprehensive legislation passed. Having said all this, I will continue to support IV as I think these efforts will eventually pay off.
learning01, I laud your efforts. However, I am not sure what incentive any employer has to really help with this cause. Sure worth trying though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by learning01
Newt said Nothing is going to happen on this Specter or any other immigration bills in Senate. The conference with House will not agree to anything.
I also sincerely believe that Nothing is going to happen I say, these senators are doing CYAs; they will bitch it to media, their constituents, hey look, we did attempt these immigration reforms.
I am talking from my long experience and wisdom and take it from me. The only force that can improve the pitiable conditions of Indian and Chinese due to retrogression and lack of visa numbers is the big corporate employers . Each one whose LC is approved, whose I-140 is approved, who is waiting to file for adjustment of status AND who are indispensable to the employer / work at this stage should write to the HR/ Immigration/ Attorney.
I am in such a position. I am a technical lead in my IT department. PD Nov 2001. I write about these issues and the difficulties once in a month my team manager, or project manager or Immigration department.
pilid
View Public Profile
Send a private message to pilid
Send email to pilid
Find all posts by pilid
Add pilid to Your Buddy List
#14 Today, 09:18 PM
beppenyc
Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I tend to agree too that nothing will happen, too much talking, too much BS, but, I can only hope that the republicans know that they can loose the house control, so, maybe they will prefer to have something more conservative than nothing.
beppenyc
View Public Profile
Send a private message to beppenyc
Find all posts by beppenyc
Add beppenyc to Your Buddy List
#15 Today, 09:43 PM
ragz4u
Super Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 183
Looks like the committee has brokered a deal :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by beppenyc
I tend to agree too that nothing will happen, too much talking, too much BS, but, I can only hope that the republicans know that they can loose the house control, so, maybe they will prefer to have something more conservative than nothing.
Check out the following article from the OC register here http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister...le_1053340.php
If this is true, this seems to be good news for us. The McCain Kennedy bill is the most pro-immigrant of the bills and if thats what becomes the Comprehensive Immigration Bill, we all might end up happy!
WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee today reached agreement on proposals for a new guest-worker program and a plan to allow the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States to become permanent residents.
Less than 24 hours after most experts and Capitol Hill watchers believed the committee would be unable to get a bill to the Senate floor by Majority Leader Bill Frist's March 27 deadline, committee Chairman Arlen Specter had brokered deals between some key senators on the complex issue.
No formal votes were taken and committee staffs were preparing to spend the next 10 days drafting language that would put in place the compromises reached. It appeared that at least a dozen of the 18 members on the panel would be prepared to back this deal. The committee plans to meet first thing in the morning on March 27. It is not yet known whether Frist will allow the panel to finish and send its bill to the Senate floor or if he still plans to bring up a more limited, possibly enforcement-only measure.
But even if nothing scuttles the compromise between now and when lawmakers get back from recess, and if the Senate passes a bill with these elements, there would remain a steep battle to get agreement from the House. The House passed an enforcement-based measure in December that doesn't include a guest-worker program or a plan for undocumented immigrants in the United States now.
Early this afternoon, Frist announced his intention to introduce a bill before next week’s recess that would deal with enforcement of immigration laws but will not include any of the controversial guest-worker or illegal immigrant provisions. Officials in Frist’s office say he is doing this to ensure that there is a bill ready on the floor if the committee fails to pass one. If Specter does get a bill out of committee, said Frist press secretary Amy Call, that could be substituted for the majority leader’s measure.
The most likely scenario, said ardent supporters of immigration reform who were pleasantly stunned by today's events, is that this will end in a stalemate, only to be brought up again in the next Congress. But they say it's important that the Senate go on record as supporting comprehensive change.
For the first time, Specter, R-Pa., who said he spent hours on the phone last night with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., agreed to Kennedy's plan to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Specter would have allowed these people to work indefinitely but not get green cards. Kennedy wanted to give them a path to legalization.
Specter agreed this morning with Kennedy's approach, provided that these illegal immigrants would not be able to start legalization proceedings until the backlog of 3 million people now waiting in countries around the world for their chance to come to the United States legally get their green cards.
The deal reached on a new guest-worker plan says that 400,000 new guest workers would be allowed into the country each year. Under the proposal authored by Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that number would have been unlimited. But Kennedy, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, agreed to a cap and also agreed that after working for two years, these new guest workers would have to go back to their home countries and reapply for another stint as guest workers, one that could last up to six years. But first they'd have to stay in their home countries for one year.
Built into this compromise, however, is a chance for these workers to get a waiver and not go home based on how long they have been employed here or if they are considered essential to a U.S. employer's business.
The plan also allows guest workers to apply for permanent U.S. residency, something not included in either Specter's bill or the other major proposal under consideration, the bill by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Kennedy essentially compromised with Cornyn, who chairs the immigration subcommittee. The deal takes parts of each of their proposals.
Not all members of the committee agreed with these compromises.
Kyl said he still believed the illegal immigrants would get preference over those waiting legally in line overseas because the undocumented would be able to stay in the U.S. and work until their turn at a green card came. Those waiting to come here legally don't have that option, he said.
And several committee members most opposed to a guest-worker program – most notably Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., were not at this morning's session.
__________________________________________________ _______________
It seems like we all have to wait till march 27th to understand the impact .Please make us understand how this makes good news for legal immigrants.There is no mention of any thing here.Frankly in the last 10 days after this bill started getting discussed, we have hardly heard anyone speaking about us.Its only guest worker,illegal immigration,border security.
Its not being pessimistic here ,Please give us some realistic picture.
We all understand & appreciate each other efforts,time,money spend in this cause.Especially hats off to Voice team.
Lets hope we all the see the fruits of "labor" soon
Thanks
GCcomesoon
__________________________________________________ _______________
pilid
Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to be pessimist but I tend to agree with learning01 that Nothing is going to happen. This is election year and it will be difficult to get such sweeping and comprehensive legislation passed. Having said all this, I will continue to support IV as I think these efforts will eventually pay off.
learning01, I laud your efforts. However, I am not sure what incentive any employer has to really help with this cause. Sure worth trying though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by learning01
Newt said Nothing is going to happen on this Specter or any other immigration bills in Senate. The conference with House will not agree to anything.
I also sincerely believe that Nothing is going to happen I say, these senators are doing CYAs; they will bitch it to media, their constituents, hey look, we did attempt these immigration reforms.
I am talking from my long experience and wisdom and take it from me. The only force that can improve the pitiable conditions of Indian and Chinese due to retrogression and lack of visa numbers is the big corporate employers . Each one whose LC is approved, whose I-140 is approved, who is waiting to file for adjustment of status AND who are indispensable to the employer / work at this stage should write to the HR/ Immigration/ Attorney.
I am in such a position. I am a technical lead in my IT department. PD Nov 2001. I write about these issues and the difficulties once in a month my team manager, or project manager or Immigration department.
pilid
View Public Profile
Send a private message to pilid
Send email to pilid
Find all posts by pilid
Add pilid to Your Buddy List
#14 Today, 09:18 PM
beppenyc
Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I tend to agree too that nothing will happen, too much talking, too much BS, but, I can only hope that the republicans know that they can loose the house control, so, maybe they will prefer to have something more conservative than nothing.
beppenyc
View Public Profile
Send a private message to beppenyc
Find all posts by beppenyc
Add beppenyc to Your Buddy List
#15 Today, 09:43 PM
ragz4u
Super Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 183
Looks like the committee has brokered a deal :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by beppenyc
I tend to agree too that nothing will happen, too much talking, too much BS, but, I can only hope that the republicans know that they can loose the house control, so, maybe they will prefer to have something more conservative than nothing.
Check out the following article from the OC register here http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister...le_1053340.php
If this is true, this seems to be good news for us. The McCain Kennedy bill is the most pro-immigrant of the bills and if thats what becomes the Comprehensive Immigration Bill, we all might end up happy!
WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee today reached agreement on proposals for a new guest-worker program and a plan to allow the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States to become permanent residents.
Less than 24 hours after most experts and Capitol Hill watchers believed the committee would be unable to get a bill to the Senate floor by Majority Leader Bill Frist's March 27 deadline, committee Chairman Arlen Specter had brokered deals between some key senators on the complex issue.
No formal votes were taken and committee staffs were preparing to spend the next 10 days drafting language that would put in place the compromises reached. It appeared that at least a dozen of the 18 members on the panel would be prepared to back this deal. The committee plans to meet first thing in the morning on March 27. It is not yet known whether Frist will allow the panel to finish and send its bill to the Senate floor or if he still plans to bring up a more limited, possibly enforcement-only measure.
But even if nothing scuttles the compromise between now and when lawmakers get back from recess, and if the Senate passes a bill with these elements, there would remain a steep battle to get agreement from the House. The House passed an enforcement-based measure in December that doesn't include a guest-worker program or a plan for undocumented immigrants in the United States now.
Early this afternoon, Frist announced his intention to introduce a bill before next week’s recess that would deal with enforcement of immigration laws but will not include any of the controversial guest-worker or illegal immigrant provisions. Officials in Frist’s office say he is doing this to ensure that there is a bill ready on the floor if the committee fails to pass one. If Specter does get a bill out of committee, said Frist press secretary Amy Call, that could be substituted for the majority leader’s measure.
The most likely scenario, said ardent supporters of immigration reform who were pleasantly stunned by today's events, is that this will end in a stalemate, only to be brought up again in the next Congress. But they say it's important that the Senate go on record as supporting comprehensive change.
For the first time, Specter, R-Pa., who said he spent hours on the phone last night with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., agreed to Kennedy's plan to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Specter would have allowed these people to work indefinitely but not get green cards. Kennedy wanted to give them a path to legalization.
Specter agreed this morning with Kennedy's approach, provided that these illegal immigrants would not be able to start legalization proceedings until the backlog of 3 million people now waiting in countries around the world for their chance to come to the United States legally get their green cards.
The deal reached on a new guest-worker plan says that 400,000 new guest workers would be allowed into the country each year. Under the proposal authored by Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that number would have been unlimited. But Kennedy, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, agreed to a cap and also agreed that after working for two years, these new guest workers would have to go back to their home countries and reapply for another stint as guest workers, one that could last up to six years. But first they'd have to stay in their home countries for one year.
Built into this compromise, however, is a chance for these workers to get a waiver and not go home based on how long they have been employed here or if they are considered essential to a U.S. employer's business.
The plan also allows guest workers to apply for permanent U.S. residency, something not included in either Specter's bill or the other major proposal under consideration, the bill by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Kennedy essentially compromised with Cornyn, who chairs the immigration subcommittee. The deal takes parts of each of their proposals.
Not all members of the committee agreed with these compromises.
Kyl said he still believed the illegal immigrants would get preference over those waiting legally in line overseas because the undocumented would be able to stay in the U.S. and work until their turn at a green card came. Those waiting to come here legally don't have that option, he said.
And several committee members most opposed to a guest-worker program – most notably Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., were not at this morning's session.
__________________________________________________ _______________
more...
gconmymind
07-29 02:51 PM
Are you sure Systems Analyst and Director of Development are considered "similar" jobs? To me it does not sound like similar jobs. Systems Analyst is a technical job whereas Director is purely managerial position.
Let me know if you have documentation on "same/similar".
Let me know if you have documentation on "same/similar".
2010 est vista wallpaper. est
crazyghoda
03-25 03:43 PM
"There are tons of skilled LEGAL immigrants from India/China waiting to buy houses with 20% down payment but wont because our immigration system have yet to process their green cards. Reform immigration & it will eventually improve the housing market."
Got it in with 1 character to spare :D
Please vote on this guys!!
Got it in with 1 character to spare :D
Please vote on this guys!!
more...
DarkChild
03-08 02:21 AM
Dark Child has no votes, someones gotta vote for him, hes got a really good layout.
thx man :thumb:
but it doesn't matter that much, dave's is better, i can handle that ;)
thx man :thumb:
but it doesn't matter that much, dave's is better, i can handle that ;)
hair Vista Wallpaper
help43
09-10 10:56 PM
Thanks for your replies and help
Which consulate i need to go if i want to go for stamping.......
http://www.happyschoolsblog.com/i797a-i797b-i797c-difference/
According to above link they are saying i need to go to india for stamping ........
please advise me on this.........
Which consulate i need to go if i want to go for stamping.......
http://www.happyschoolsblog.com/i797a-i797b-i797c-difference/
According to above link they are saying i need to go to india for stamping ........
please advise me on this.........
more...
eb3_nepa
08-10 05:10 PM
May be he or she has a spouse whose birth country is non retrogressed .. :)
Even THEN it is not possible. Coz the June 2007 bulletin says that even ROW has to be atlest June 2005. His PD was Dec 2005 so there is NO way he could have applied.
Even THEN it is not possible. Coz the June 2007 bulletin says that even ROW has to be atlest June 2005. His PD was Dec 2005 so there is NO way he could have applied.
hot est vista wallpaper.
MatsP
February 5th, 2008, 05:56 AM
Hey, I didn't know you've seen my cameras, Mats! ;)
Actually, I've seen my old EOS 1n, which was a bit beaten up when I bought it used several years ago - and it's no better after I have had it for a while. The 1-series bodies do tolerate quite a bit of abuse and still take good shots. I just wish I had the money to get a 1Dmk2 [or Mk3...].
--
Mats
Actually, I've seen my old EOS 1n, which was a bit beaten up when I bought it used several years ago - and it's no better after I have had it for a while. The 1-series bodies do tolerate quite a bit of abuse and still take good shots. I just wish I had the money to get a 1Dmk2 [or Mk3...].
--
Mats
more...
house For the Vista strands
regacct
11-23 01:27 PM
Why the Anti-immigrant Dog Did Not Bark in Illinois (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/why-the-anti-immigrant-do_b_787368.html)
In the Sherlock Holmes short story "Silver Blaze" the famous detective focuses his analytic prowess on the "curious incident" of the dog that did not bark in the nighttime.
In the recent mid-term elections there was a similar "curious incident" in Illinois that is important nationally. No major candidate in Illinois from either the Republican or Democratic Party demagogued the immigration issue. Neither the ultra-conservative Republican candidate for Governor, Bill Brady, nor the supposedly "moderate" candidate for Senate, Mark Kirk, ran ads, did mailers, or used talking points about the supposed scourge of illegal immigrants taking jobs or sponging up our tax money. Nor did any major candidate for Congress.
It is definitely true that a number of the Republican candidates that were elected to Congressional seats hold anti-immigrant positions. But they did not choose to use those positions as wedge issues in the recent election. Why not?
A possible explanation is that Republicans in Illinois are a kinder, more reasonable group than Republicans elsewhere. That, I'm afraid, does not pass the laugh test.
You could argue that it's because Illinois has a large immigrant population in general and a large Latino population in particular. But so do Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and California where Republican Party candidates tried to use "illegal immigration" and "amnesty" as wedge issues to galvanize their base.
It is true that Illinois has a more immigrant-friendly tradition than some of the states in the Southwest. Much of the Caucasian population in Illinois comes from recent immigrant stock themselves - from Ireland, Poland, Lithuania, Italy, Germany, Croatia and Serbia.
But there is also a more old-fashioned reason. Demagogues and bullies tend to prey upon those whom they consider too weak to strike back. It turned out that in Nevada, California, and Colorado they made the wrong call, since their demagoguery galvanized turnout among Latino voters that defeated right-wing candidates for the Senate.
In fact, the Latino vote saved the Senate for the Democrats.
But in Illinois the right didn't even try their demagogic tactics. That's largely because the immigrant communities in Illinois have worked hard over five election cycles to build a muscular political organizing vehicle that gets out the immigrant vote -- and can bite back fiercely at anti-immigrant demagogues.
In 2008, Jim Oberweis ran for Congress against Democrat Bill Foster on a heavily anti-immigrant platform and was flattened by the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. That experience sent a lesson through Illinois' right-wing political class. Nothing like watching one of their own get scalded to teach others not to touch the stove.
The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR) no leads The New Americans' Democracy Project . This year, 13 electoral organizers worked for months in both the City of Chicago and the Suburbs. They targeted 133,128 infrequent immigrant voters for a multi-contact phone and door operation, and before the election was done the volunteers they recruited did a total of 549,000 live phone calls to their universe of Latino, Asian and Muslim voters.
This work has been growing in scale and bite since 2002 when it began with no funding and in only nine precincts. At this point the immigrant vote can no longer be ignored by either party. Here are several key lessons from the Illinois immigrant organizing experience:
1) Consistency Counts: ICIRR has had between 10 and 20 full-time immigrant election campaign organizers every election since 2004. They begin their work in July and work through November, building a "recent immigrant" field operation. In every single cycle they add new skills to their electoral organizing.
2) Numbers Count: The immigrant voter program has registered over 90,000 new immigrant voters. They door-knock between 35,000 and 60,000 doors every election cycle.
3) Diversity is Strength: The Democracy Project works with leaders and organizations in Latino community, but also the Asian, Arab, and Polish immigrant communities.
4) Mine the "Base" and work the "Swings": The electoral work is done in the immigrant "base" Chicago port of entry neighborhoods to generate numbers, but also in swing suburban political districts where multi-ethnic immigrant organizing multiplies the voting power of Latinos. The activation of new immigrant voters in suburban "swing" communities forces Republican attention to immigrant issues.
5) Reward Friends, Punish Enemies: ICIRR keeps track of who engages in immigrant bashing -- and stikes back. When Republican anti-immigrant candidate Jim Oberweis polarized voters against "illegal immigrants", ICIRR released to the media a film of undocumented immigrants cleaning his business while being paid only $3.23 an hour. When old-school Democratic Mayor of Waukegan, IL attacked "illegals" with local law enforcement of immigration laws, he went down to defeat in the next election because Latinos in Waukegan mobilized to support his opponent.
6) Naturalize, Naturalize, Naturalize: ICIRR has one of the most aggressive citizenship programs in the nation. All told, an additional 170,000 immigrants were naturalized in Illinois over the last five years. The coalition itself directly assisted over 48,000 of those legal immigrants to become citizens, and thus voters.
ICIRR is not a partisan organization. In fact, their most recent fundraiser was headlined by the popular former Republican Governor Jim Edgar. But because of the track record of Republicans across the country, its organizing definitely benefits Democrats. In fact, Democratic Governor Pat Quinn - who won by fewer than 20,000 votes -- would not likely have been re-elected had it not been for their work.
On the policy side, ICIRR works for immigrant-friendly policies, and by any definition they have succeeded in winning some of the most immigrant-friendly policies in the nation at the state level in Illinois.
The state of Illinois leans Blue, but it has wide swatches of Red. In the recent elections the Democrats barely lost the Senate race and took some terrible losses in the Congressional delegation. But in addition to electing a Democratic Governor, both the State House and Senate remained in Democratic hands. The immigrant vote was critical to these Democratic victories, but it is also a force that Republicans ignore or abuse at their peril. In this election, at least, Illinois Republicans generally had the good sense not to bait the immigrant community.
In the current environment of racialized fear and polarization against immigrants across the U.S., the hard work of immigrant advocates in Illinois provides two key lessons:
* Demagogues go after the weak, not the strong. You don't stop anti-immigrant demagoguery through accommodation, you stop it with strength.
* Nuts and Bolts Organizing works.
In the Sherlock Holmes short story "Silver Blaze" the famous detective focuses his analytic prowess on the "curious incident" of the dog that did not bark in the nighttime.
In the recent mid-term elections there was a similar "curious incident" in Illinois that is important nationally. No major candidate in Illinois from either the Republican or Democratic Party demagogued the immigration issue. Neither the ultra-conservative Republican candidate for Governor, Bill Brady, nor the supposedly "moderate" candidate for Senate, Mark Kirk, ran ads, did mailers, or used talking points about the supposed scourge of illegal immigrants taking jobs or sponging up our tax money. Nor did any major candidate for Congress.
It is definitely true that a number of the Republican candidates that were elected to Congressional seats hold anti-immigrant positions. But they did not choose to use those positions as wedge issues in the recent election. Why not?
A possible explanation is that Republicans in Illinois are a kinder, more reasonable group than Republicans elsewhere. That, I'm afraid, does not pass the laugh test.
You could argue that it's because Illinois has a large immigrant population in general and a large Latino population in particular. But so do Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and California where Republican Party candidates tried to use "illegal immigration" and "amnesty" as wedge issues to galvanize their base.
It is true that Illinois has a more immigrant-friendly tradition than some of the states in the Southwest. Much of the Caucasian population in Illinois comes from recent immigrant stock themselves - from Ireland, Poland, Lithuania, Italy, Germany, Croatia and Serbia.
But there is also a more old-fashioned reason. Demagogues and bullies tend to prey upon those whom they consider too weak to strike back. It turned out that in Nevada, California, and Colorado they made the wrong call, since their demagoguery galvanized turnout among Latino voters that defeated right-wing candidates for the Senate.
In fact, the Latino vote saved the Senate for the Democrats.
But in Illinois the right didn't even try their demagogic tactics. That's largely because the immigrant communities in Illinois have worked hard over five election cycles to build a muscular political organizing vehicle that gets out the immigrant vote -- and can bite back fiercely at anti-immigrant demagogues.
In 2008, Jim Oberweis ran for Congress against Democrat Bill Foster on a heavily anti-immigrant platform and was flattened by the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. That experience sent a lesson through Illinois' right-wing political class. Nothing like watching one of their own get scalded to teach others not to touch the stove.
The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR) no leads The New Americans' Democracy Project . This year, 13 electoral organizers worked for months in both the City of Chicago and the Suburbs. They targeted 133,128 infrequent immigrant voters for a multi-contact phone and door operation, and before the election was done the volunteers they recruited did a total of 549,000 live phone calls to their universe of Latino, Asian and Muslim voters.
This work has been growing in scale and bite since 2002 when it began with no funding and in only nine precincts. At this point the immigrant vote can no longer be ignored by either party. Here are several key lessons from the Illinois immigrant organizing experience:
1) Consistency Counts: ICIRR has had between 10 and 20 full-time immigrant election campaign organizers every election since 2004. They begin their work in July and work through November, building a "recent immigrant" field operation. In every single cycle they add new skills to their electoral organizing.
2) Numbers Count: The immigrant voter program has registered over 90,000 new immigrant voters. They door-knock between 35,000 and 60,000 doors every election cycle.
3) Diversity is Strength: The Democracy Project works with leaders and organizations in Latino community, but also the Asian, Arab, and Polish immigrant communities.
4) Mine the "Base" and work the "Swings": The electoral work is done in the immigrant "base" Chicago port of entry neighborhoods to generate numbers, but also in swing suburban political districts where multi-ethnic immigrant organizing multiplies the voting power of Latinos. The activation of new immigrant voters in suburban "swing" communities forces Republican attention to immigrant issues.
5) Reward Friends, Punish Enemies: ICIRR keeps track of who engages in immigrant bashing -- and stikes back. When Republican anti-immigrant candidate Jim Oberweis polarized voters against "illegal immigrants", ICIRR released to the media a film of undocumented immigrants cleaning his business while being paid only $3.23 an hour. When old-school Democratic Mayor of Waukegan, IL attacked "illegals" with local law enforcement of immigration laws, he went down to defeat in the next election because Latinos in Waukegan mobilized to support his opponent.
6) Naturalize, Naturalize, Naturalize: ICIRR has one of the most aggressive citizenship programs in the nation. All told, an additional 170,000 immigrants were naturalized in Illinois over the last five years. The coalition itself directly assisted over 48,000 of those legal immigrants to become citizens, and thus voters.
ICIRR is not a partisan organization. In fact, their most recent fundraiser was headlined by the popular former Republican Governor Jim Edgar. But because of the track record of Republicans across the country, its organizing definitely benefits Democrats. In fact, Democratic Governor Pat Quinn - who won by fewer than 20,000 votes -- would not likely have been re-elected had it not been for their work.
On the policy side, ICIRR works for immigrant-friendly policies, and by any definition they have succeeded in winning some of the most immigrant-friendly policies in the nation at the state level in Illinois.
The state of Illinois leans Blue, but it has wide swatches of Red. In the recent elections the Democrats barely lost the Senate race and took some terrible losses in the Congressional delegation. But in addition to electing a Democratic Governor, both the State House and Senate remained in Democratic hands. The immigrant vote was critical to these Democratic victories, but it is also a force that Republicans ignore or abuse at their peril. In this election, at least, Illinois Republicans generally had the good sense not to bait the immigrant community.
In the current environment of racialized fear and polarization against immigrants across the U.S., the hard work of immigrant advocates in Illinois provides two key lessons:
* Demagogues go after the weak, not the strong. You don't stop anti-immigrant demagoguery through accommodation, you stop it with strength.
* Nuts and Bolts Organizing works.
tattoo est vista wallpaper.
jonty_11
02-08 04:55 PM
steve,
I know a person who applied two H1s with two different employers A and B. He got reciept numbers for both H1s' After that he hot a ref asking about which company he is going to join with.
He replied as he is going to work for company A. USCIS again send a ref asking him , why he applied for H1 with two companies when he knows that he is going to work for company A. That issues is still going on.
I wish more of this wud happen to run these cheats out of business.
I know a person who applied two H1s with two different employers A and B. He got reciept numbers for both H1s' After that he hot a ref asking about which company he is going to join with.
He replied as he is going to work for company A. USCIS again send a ref asking him , why he applied for H1 with two companies when he knows that he is going to work for company A. That issues is still going on.
I wish more of this wud happen to run these cheats out of business.
more...
pictures HD Vista Wallpapers
priderock
08-06 11:55 AM
My i-140 premium processing application was filed on the 22nd of June,2007 as indicated in the information below. The package & check were returned in the first week of July. A letter indicating the reason for remittance and return was that the labor cert. attached was a photocopy and not the original.
Now what does not make sense here is that the original labor was sent along with the original i140 application filed last year(in june 2006).
I called the USCIS info line and the rep. suggested that i could resend it with an explanation.
What concerns me is if i do resend it, would it be considered only after suspension of i140 premium is lifted or would it be considered as a case from last month and processed under premium.
My lawyer told me that 140 PP can't be filed with a copy of LC. They say you can only file regular processing if you don't have the original LC.
She said, it requires some additional processing by USCIS in case of copy of LC that requires more time and therefore they can't process it in 15 days.
Now what does not make sense here is that the original labor was sent along with the original i140 application filed last year(in june 2006).
I called the USCIS info line and the rep. suggested that i could resend it with an explanation.
What concerns me is if i do resend it, would it be considered only after suspension of i140 premium is lifted or would it be considered as a case from last month and processed under premium.
My lawyer told me that 140 PP can't be filed with a copy of LC. They say you can only file regular processing if you don't have the original LC.
She said, it requires some additional processing by USCIS in case of copy of LC that requires more time and therefore they can't process it in 15 days.
dresses est vista wallpaper.
ksrk
08-21 07:40 PM
I have a strange situation where I was thinking of AC21 all the while since January (Jul 02 Filer, TSC with Receipt# SRC 0722...).
Now, I finally made my mind and about to get an offer (after labor day, they say).
The lawyer says "don't think about AC21 now, because most probably your GC will be here within 3 months"
My PD is July 31st, 2006.
Dilemma: I don't want to screw up (or stretch the case un-necessarily) by changing employment just in case if there is an RFE. But then, I have to stay with my current employer for 6+ months AFTER GC as well, to be able to prove "permanent employment" intent.
please advise if the timing (within 3 months) makes sense.
Please also shed light on the permanent intent thing .
Many thanks
Not sure of terminology here, but some companies have policies to "go after" employees who leave immediately after getting their employment-based permanent residence. God knows there may be a law that allows the company to sue you for your "intent" of staying with the company for the sole purpose of getting your green card and not because you have a vested interest in doing your job for the company.
While these policies/laws allow for the employee to leave the company after a "reasonable" amount of time (usually six months), if, however, the employee leaves the company within that timeframe, the company has good cause to argue that the employee had an intent of leaving the company from the beginning right after s/he obtained employment-based permanent residence.
Not sure how much sense this made - the law is kinda fuzzy here, AFAIK. As is good with such matters, get professional advice from a good immigration attorney about what you need to do - always worth the money; the risk is not.
Now, I finally made my mind and about to get an offer (after labor day, they say).
The lawyer says "don't think about AC21 now, because most probably your GC will be here within 3 months"
My PD is July 31st, 2006.
Dilemma: I don't want to screw up (or stretch the case un-necessarily) by changing employment just in case if there is an RFE. But then, I have to stay with my current employer for 6+ months AFTER GC as well, to be able to prove "permanent employment" intent.
please advise if the timing (within 3 months) makes sense.
Please also shed light on the permanent intent thing .
Many thanks
Not sure of terminology here, but some companies have policies to "go after" employees who leave immediately after getting their employment-based permanent residence. God knows there may be a law that allows the company to sue you for your "intent" of staying with the company for the sole purpose of getting your green card and not because you have a vested interest in doing your job for the company.
While these policies/laws allow for the employee to leave the company after a "reasonable" amount of time (usually six months), if, however, the employee leaves the company within that timeframe, the company has good cause to argue that the employee had an intent of leaving the company from the beginning right after s/he obtained employment-based permanent residence.
Not sure how much sense this made - the law is kinda fuzzy here, AFAIK. As is good with such matters, get professional advice from a good immigration attorney about what you need to do - always worth the money; the risk is not.
more...
makeup one of the est landscape
snathan
02-17 09:06 PM
Do I need recent salary slips for transfer ?
Yes you need.
Yes you need.
girlfriend Download Vista Wallpapers, XP
harrydr
06-30 11:31 AM
So what you are saying is i can have 2 H1-b's only if both the jobs are part time. If any one of the two is full time, then it would be illegal. But here's the question. If i file for a 2nd H1-B, the INS should reject my 2nd H1-B request as i already have a full time job on my 1st H1-B. I guess this would be the only way to find out, since no one is sure what the law is.Is there some kind of INS documented law or statements to confirm this??
hairstyles vista is broken wallpaper by
gchopes
11-05 07:37 PM
What happens if primary 485 gets approved and spouse 485 not filed due to PD not being current or the primary missed the short time given to file spouse 485?
snathan
05-25 01:48 PM
Search the forum, it full of post where people has called SNATHAN a MORON
now I am not saying so... he might not be a MORON but then why most of people call him so ??
Welcome back PlainSpeak...aka Poornima,
Jet flyer is waiting for you...
Its time for IV to ban your IP....you know the dog's tail.
now I am not saying so... he might not be a MORON but then why most of people call him so ??
Welcome back PlainSpeak...aka Poornima,
Jet flyer is waiting for you...
Its time for IV to ban your IP....you know the dog's tail.
texcan
08-04 09:29 PM
I've applied for EAD/AP renewal for both myself and my wife. I spent $1,290 for this.
Say I got my GC approved and then I call USCIS and withdraw my pending EAD/AP application. Will I get a refund for pending EAD/AP application, if I get my GC approved before EAD/AP approval?
Thanks,
India EB2; PD - Nov 05
I-140 - Filed Mar '06; Approved Jun '06
I-485 - Reached NSC July 26'07;
My friend,
Donot get angry, its not personal to you...but for the action.
Please live your life and try not to find excuses to be unhappy.
Think about this, you have been waiting for GC ( assumption) for last 3-4 years, you must have had your times of frustration, everyone does...but now when your GC is thru or about to be thru; you have found a way to stay anxious, unhappy.
Sorry to say these words to you, please donot mind and not take it personally.
Be happy at least and spread some joy in community.
See the link below, this is inspiration and actions i expect from community (IV) /friends/group. Please see
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Sara+Reinertsen+Ironman&search_type=&aq=f
Please donate some time, money to IV...if not some cheer at least.
Say I got my GC approved and then I call USCIS and withdraw my pending EAD/AP application. Will I get a refund for pending EAD/AP application, if I get my GC approved before EAD/AP approval?
Thanks,
India EB2; PD - Nov 05
I-140 - Filed Mar '06; Approved Jun '06
I-485 - Reached NSC July 26'07;
My friend,
Donot get angry, its not personal to you...but for the action.
Please live your life and try not to find excuses to be unhappy.
Think about this, you have been waiting for GC ( assumption) for last 3-4 years, you must have had your times of frustration, everyone does...but now when your GC is thru or about to be thru; you have found a way to stay anxious, unhappy.
Sorry to say these words to you, please donot mind and not take it personally.
Be happy at least and spread some joy in community.
See the link below, this is inspiration and actions i expect from community (IV) /friends/group. Please see
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Sara+Reinertsen+Ironman&search_type=&aq=f
Please donate some time, money to IV...if not some cheer at least.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario