rick_rajvanshi
11-12 11:54 AM
As bad as it can get for some immigrants.
Money issues may have contributed to murder-suicide | KATU.com - News, Weather and Sports - Portland, Oregon | News (http://www.katu.com/news/69805837.html)
please pray for the departed souls.
Money issues may have contributed to murder-suicide | KATU.com - News, Weather and Sports - Portland, Oregon | News (http://www.katu.com/news/69805837.html)
please pray for the departed souls.
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
chanduv23
09-15 04:23 PM
Bump
paulinasmith
08-05 12:18 AM
Hi,
Normally for non auditted PERM cases only employer can check the status.
Try : Welcome to the iCERT Portal (http://icert.doleta.gov/)
icert case status check on the above link
Cheers
Normally for non auditted PERM cases only employer can check the status.
Try : Welcome to the iCERT Portal (http://icert.doleta.gov/)
icert case status check on the above link
Cheers
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
Ihitha
02-26 03:28 PM
Hi
I'm currently working on L1B visa from company A. My present employer applied H1B visa also for me and it got approved around in the August last year. Now I'm planning to change my visa status to H1B.
So I would like to know the options that I have to get my visa status changed to H1b.
1) Can I transfer my H1B to some other company now as my H1B already approved? Is it possible?
If it is, how can I change my status?
2) What is the procedure if I have my current employer do my visa status changed to H1B? Do I need to leave US and come back to take that effect?
Please kindly reply to my questions.
Thanks in advance.
I'm currently working on L1B visa from company A. My present employer applied H1B visa also for me and it got approved around in the August last year. Now I'm planning to change my visa status to H1B.
So I would like to know the options that I have to get my visa status changed to H1b.
1) Can I transfer my H1B to some other company now as my H1B already approved? Is it possible?
If it is, how can I change my status?
2) What is the procedure if I have my current employer do my visa status changed to H1B? Do I need to leave US and come back to take that effect?
Please kindly reply to my questions.
Thanks in advance.
more...
andy.thorne
08-02 09:01 AM
I'm British, so I thought it was more appropriate to put British monetary value rather than American monetary value.
immigration_indian
07-18 03:56 AM
I truly feel that IV has done a great job !!!!!!!!!!
I have contributed 100 USD ( one time ) towards IV
I would encourage people
" NEVER AVOID joining a struggle because u r one among the million .....remember it is all the ones that have added to make this million"
i will be further contributing
i am very happy about IV
Thank you once more !!!!!!!!!!!
I have contributed 100 USD ( one time ) towards IV
I would encourage people
" NEVER AVOID joining a struggle because u r one among the million .....remember it is all the ones that have added to make this million"
i will be further contributing
i am very happy about IV
Thank you once more !!!!!!!!!!!
more...
iptel
04-03 02:22 PM
My Husband's I 140 got approved and his lawyer included my name as well in the I 140 application.
Can some one plss help me by letting me know if I can change to F1 for my further studies inspite of my name being included in the I 140 application
Plss let me know at the earliest possible as I need to apply for change of status before may....!!!!!
Mam,
This is wrong forum to discuss this issue. We are here to discuss the general issues faced by people for greencard.
Thanks
Can some one plss help me by letting me know if I can change to F1 for my further studies inspite of my name being included in the I 140 application
Plss let me know at the earliest possible as I need to apply for change of status before may....!!!!!
Mam,
This is wrong forum to discuss this issue. We are here to discuss the general issues faced by people for greencard.
Thanks
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
drona
09-01 04:19 PM
IV Meet-up in San Diego Sept 2nd at 1 PM. Please join our yahoo group for more info:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SC_Immigration_Voice/
See you then!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SC_Immigration_Voice/
See you then!
more...
kkt_tkk
07-12 10:46 AM
Hi,
Ist case:
I applied GC for me and my spouse thro' EB3, AOS in July 2007, with Priority date 2005.
Currently I am in H1B and my spouse uses EAD to work.
2nd case:
My spouse applied the labor process and planning to apply I-140 in EB2 and choose CP process , once Labor approved.
Question:
For Spouse:
Is it possible to use EAD (1st case, as benificiary) to work and go for CP in 2nd case (Primary)?.
For me:
Can I add my name in CP (as Benificiary), with out effecting the my process AOS/H1B (1st case)
Thank you for your time, please reply.
Thanks,
KKT
Ist case:
I applied GC for me and my spouse thro' EB3, AOS in July 2007, with Priority date 2005.
Currently I am in H1B and my spouse uses EAD to work.
2nd case:
My spouse applied the labor process and planning to apply I-140 in EB2 and choose CP process , once Labor approved.
Question:
For Spouse:
Is it possible to use EAD (1st case, as benificiary) to work and go for CP in 2nd case (Primary)?.
For me:
Can I add my name in CP (as Benificiary), with out effecting the my process AOS/H1B (1st case)
Thank you for your time, please reply.
Thanks,
KKT
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
Ann Ruben
01-20 08:50 AM
An I-140 petition filed for you by your current employer will have no impact on the pending I-140 appeal filed by your future employer.
more...
cbadari99
03-01 11:52 PM
If you worked as a TA/RA and received compensation for that, you should mention your University as your previous employer.
This is what I did. However it is better if you consult your attorney.
This is what I did. However it is better if you consult your attorney.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
jerez_z
05-28 01:00 AM
well done, but I was curious as to any particular reason you decided to write haylow as opposed the the shorter easier more correct halo?
leet isn't cool
leet isn't cool
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
raysaikat
04-28 03:35 PM
What is the difference been EB2 Vs EB2 NIW and when does one qualify for NIW
National Interest Waiver means that you do not have to have a job to petition for EB-2 GC. Consequently, there is no labor certification requirement. NIW petition is your petition; not some employers.
National Interest Waiver means that you do not have to have a job to petition for EB-2 GC. Consequently, there is no labor certification requirement. NIW petition is your petition; not some employers.
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
anilsal
01-14 12:28 PM
Even when officers work on your files, there may not be any LUDs.
If you input all your case numbers (old H1B approvals etc), you will see that those get LUDs once in a while. They may be batch jobs or someone pulling files frequently or filing old applications etc.
Since your PD is a few months away, it is best to just relax and hope your applications are preadjudicated. When your PD becomes current, then go the Service Request - infopass - senator/ombudsman route.
If you are that interested, take infopass appointments and find out where your application is. If the CIS person is friendly, they give out a lot of information. Dress well and talk politely.
If you input all your case numbers (old H1B approvals etc), you will see that those get LUDs once in a while. They may be batch jobs or someone pulling files frequently or filing old applications etc.
Since your PD is a few months away, it is best to just relax and hope your applications are preadjudicated. When your PD becomes current, then go the Service Request - infopass - senator/ombudsman route.
If you are that interested, take infopass appointments and find out where your application is. If the CIS person is friendly, they give out a lot of information. Dress well and talk politely.
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
saileshjiandani
12-10 11:07 AM
Any feedback will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Thanks,
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
harithakb
07-19 02:03 AM
Hi,
Because of some reason or the other it happend to be so bad that my I140 documents were sent by courier on Tuesday - 17 July 2007.
can any one of you please suggest what best I can do to file my 485 during this current window July 17 to Aug 17 2007.
I appreciate your suggestions / adive...
Thanks & Regards,
SK.
Because of some reason or the other it happend to be so bad that my I140 documents were sent by courier on Tuesday - 17 July 2007.
can any one of you please suggest what best I can do to file my 485 during this current window July 17 to Aug 17 2007.
I appreciate your suggestions / adive...
Thanks & Regards,
SK.
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
Macaca
07-29 06:14 PM
Partisans Gone Wild (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701691.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter (neverett@princeton.edu) Washington Post, July 29, 2007
Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
A funny thing is happening in American politics: The fiercest battle is no longer between the left and the right but between partisanship and bipartisanship. The Bush administration, which has been notorious for playing to its hard-right base, has started reaching across the aisle, with its admirable immigration bill (even though it failed), with its new push for a diplomatic strategy toward North Korea and Iran, and above all with its choice of three seasoned moderates for important positions: Robert M. Gates as defense secretary, John D. Negroponte as deputy secretary of state and Robert B. Zoellick as World Bank president.
On the Democratic side, the opening last month of a new foreign policy think tank, the Center for a New American Security, struck a number of bipartisan notes. The Princeton Project on National Security, which I co-directed with fellow Princeton professor John Ikenberry, drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas, some of which have been endorsed by such presidential candidates as John McCain, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat. Barack Obama is running on a return to a far more bipartisan approach to policy and a far less partisan approach to politics. (Full disclosure: I have contributed to Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns.)
In short, some sanity may actually be returning to American politics. Perhaps the most interesting development is the belated realization by the Bush administration that its insistence on an ABC ("anything but Clinton") policy has proved deeply damaging.
But the predominant political reaction to this modest outbreak of common sense has been virulent opposition, from both right and left. The true believers in the Bush revolution are furious. John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded the alarm in February with a broadside against the agreement that the State Department and its Asian negotiating partners had reached with North Korea, warning President Bush that it contradicted "fundamental premises" of his foreign policy. Next came yet another intra-administration battle over Iran policy, with David Wurmser, a top vice presidential aide, telling a conservative audience in May that Vice President Cheney believed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strategy of at least talking with Iranian officials about Iraq was failing.
From the left, many progressives have responded to the foreign policy failures of the Bush administration by trying to purge their fellow liberals. Tufts professor Tony Smith published a blistering essay on Iraq in The Washington Post several months ago, attacking not neoconservative policymakers but liberal thinkers who had, he argued, become enablers for the neocons and thus were the real villains. More recently, the author Michael Lind wrote in the Nation that the "greatest threat to liberal internationalism comes not from without -- from neoconservatives, realists and isolationists who reject the liberal internationalist tradition as a whole -- but from within." He singled out Ikenberry, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, James Lindsay of the University of Texas at Austin and me. These "heretics," he said, "are as dangerous as the infidels." Heretics? Infidels? Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.
In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: "Hillary isn't actually a woman, she's a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine." Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal's Pentecost conference, in which he urged Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: "If . . . you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing." Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where "mainstream media" bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves.
Students of American politics argue that partisan attacks have their own cycles. George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of placing results over party. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the political advantages of take-no-prisoners, call-every-critic-a-traitor patriotism proved irresistible. And the political and media attack industry that has grown up as a result has too much at stake to give in to the calmer, blander beat of bipartisanship.
It's time, then, for a bipartisan backlash. Politicians who think we need bargaining to fix the crises we face should appear side by side with a friend from the other party -- the consistent policy of the admirably bipartisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Candidates who accept that the winner of the 2008 election is going to need a lot of friends across the aisle -- not least to get out of Iraq -- should make a point of finding something to praise in the other party's platform. And as for the rest of us, the consumers of a steady diet of political vitriol, every time we read a partisan attack, we should shoot -- or at least spam -- the messenger.
Partisans Gone Wild, Part II: Web Rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301083.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter, August 3, 2007
Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
A funny thing is happening in American politics: The fiercest battle is no longer between the left and the right but between partisanship and bipartisanship. The Bush administration, which has been notorious for playing to its hard-right base, has started reaching across the aisle, with its admirable immigration bill (even though it failed), with its new push for a diplomatic strategy toward North Korea and Iran, and above all with its choice of three seasoned moderates for important positions: Robert M. Gates as defense secretary, John D. Negroponte as deputy secretary of state and Robert B. Zoellick as World Bank president.
On the Democratic side, the opening last month of a new foreign policy think tank, the Center for a New American Security, struck a number of bipartisan notes. The Princeton Project on National Security, which I co-directed with fellow Princeton professor John Ikenberry, drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas, some of which have been endorsed by such presidential candidates as John McCain, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat. Barack Obama is running on a return to a far more bipartisan approach to policy and a far less partisan approach to politics. (Full disclosure: I have contributed to Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns.)
In short, some sanity may actually be returning to American politics. Perhaps the most interesting development is the belated realization by the Bush administration that its insistence on an ABC ("anything but Clinton") policy has proved deeply damaging.
But the predominant political reaction to this modest outbreak of common sense has been virulent opposition, from both right and left. The true believers in the Bush revolution are furious. John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded the alarm in February with a broadside against the agreement that the State Department and its Asian negotiating partners had reached with North Korea, warning President Bush that it contradicted "fundamental premises" of his foreign policy. Next came yet another intra-administration battle over Iran policy, with David Wurmser, a top vice presidential aide, telling a conservative audience in May that Vice President Cheney believed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strategy of at least talking with Iranian officials about Iraq was failing.
From the left, many progressives have responded to the foreign policy failures of the Bush administration by trying to purge their fellow liberals. Tufts professor Tony Smith published a blistering essay on Iraq in The Washington Post several months ago, attacking not neoconservative policymakers but liberal thinkers who had, he argued, become enablers for the neocons and thus were the real villains. More recently, the author Michael Lind wrote in the Nation that the "greatest threat to liberal internationalism comes not from without -- from neoconservatives, realists and isolationists who reject the liberal internationalist tradition as a whole -- but from within." He singled out Ikenberry, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, James Lindsay of the University of Texas at Austin and me. These "heretics," he said, "are as dangerous as the infidels." Heretics? Infidels? Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.
In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: "Hillary isn't actually a woman, she's a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine." Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal's Pentecost conference, in which he urged Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: "If . . . you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing." Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where "mainstream media" bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves.
Students of American politics argue that partisan attacks have their own cycles. George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of placing results over party. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the political advantages of take-no-prisoners, call-every-critic-a-traitor patriotism proved irresistible. And the political and media attack industry that has grown up as a result has too much at stake to give in to the calmer, blander beat of bipartisanship.
It's time, then, for a bipartisan backlash. Politicians who think we need bargaining to fix the crises we face should appear side by side with a friend from the other party -- the consistent policy of the admirably bipartisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Candidates who accept that the winner of the 2008 election is going to need a lot of friends across the aisle -- not least to get out of Iraq -- should make a point of finding something to praise in the other party's platform. And as for the rest of us, the consumers of a steady diet of political vitriol, every time we read a partisan attack, we should shoot -- or at least spam -- the messenger.
Partisans Gone Wild, Part II: Web Rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301083.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter, August 3, 2007
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
JunRN
05-10 06:39 PM
Yes, as long as the new job is same/similar to job B. The 180 days count is number of calendar days i-485 is pending, not number of days on the job. One may not even be working at all during that 180 days, or even while waiting for i-485 approval however, must have a very good excuse because IOs will be very suspicious. It is not violating any rules though as i-485 is for future employment.
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
Lisap
09-10 02:08 PM
It should be ok. Check with an attorney to be sure
albnfsjia
10-04 11:37 AM
hi
i want to learn expression blend more!
i did not know some source that will help me in blend
i mean some source that teach by deeply .
i want to learn expression blend more!
i did not know some source that will help me in blend
i mean some source that teach by deeply .
crystal
02-06 09:55 PM
As per AC-21, you can just do H1 b transfer and keep ur already applied I-485 running as you have crossed 6 months.
Lets say, after getting EAD and AP and 6 months after filing for I-485, you want to switch jobs to another company but want to do an H1B transfer to a similar position. Do we still have to start the green card process from scratch to remain on H1B?
Lets say, after getting EAD and AP and 6 months after filing for I-485, you want to switch jobs to another company but want to do an H1B transfer to a similar position. Do we still have to start the green card process from scratch to remain on H1B?
No comments:
Post a Comment