purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
GC_1000Watt
01-03 02:05 AM
1> just carried the usual documents required, job letter, tax returns, I-129, LCA, Paystubs etc. I also carried whatever documentation I could find for my previous employers like experience letter, last few paystubs etc. Also original of degrees/transcripts.
2> I stayed at Hotel Real Del Rio which is less than a minute walk from the consulate. It's right behind the consulate infact. Very nice hotel; courteous staff. Recommended you do booking through expedia ($70), although expedia will not charge your credit card but you can carry the printout which will get you that rate. If you book directly with the hotel, the rate's much higher (close to $100)
3> YEs, I got the tourist visa for mexico. Although nobody checked it anywhere, but I believe entering any country without valid visa/paperwork is illegal. Getting a mexican visa was very easy. You just go to the consulate/embassy, tell them you want to go to the US consulate in Tijuana for H-1b stamping. They issue you within the hour stamped. Cost about $36. Just get your H-1b petition with you for proof, and the appointment confirmation.
4> The validity of H-1b depends on the validity of the petition I-797. Whatever period you have that for, will be stamped.
5> He just asked me for job letter, asked me if I've applied for GC (I have), asked me that don't I have to work with them for a certain time (to which I replied I did and after I was eligible I changed employers using AC-21). He just read the job duties in my H-1B petition (most likely to check for any TAL related stuff). He remarked that inspite of my experience, my close-to-six-figure salary is a bit above slavery (to which I replied that I do get other benefits such as 401k, paid time-off, health/medical insurance etc.). He just asked some other questions such as what was my major in masters, how long I've been in US, had I worked in India, if so how long. I replied all of them. It appears he put that in the comments screen on his PC. And then he said he's approving it.
It was basically a bar-like casual conversation I had with him. Within a few seconds of my start of the interview with IO, I knew he'll approve my visa. so it was pretty cool all along the way.
Can you please let me know which website to book H1B visa interview appointment in Mexico and Canada?
And please guide me on things to keep in mind while going for stamping.
Thanks.
2> I stayed at Hotel Real Del Rio which is less than a minute walk from the consulate. It's right behind the consulate infact. Very nice hotel; courteous staff. Recommended you do booking through expedia ($70), although expedia will not charge your credit card but you can carry the printout which will get you that rate. If you book directly with the hotel, the rate's much higher (close to $100)
3> YEs, I got the tourist visa for mexico. Although nobody checked it anywhere, but I believe entering any country without valid visa/paperwork is illegal. Getting a mexican visa was very easy. You just go to the consulate/embassy, tell them you want to go to the US consulate in Tijuana for H-1b stamping. They issue you within the hour stamped. Cost about $36. Just get your H-1b petition with you for proof, and the appointment confirmation.
4> The validity of H-1b depends on the validity of the petition I-797. Whatever period you have that for, will be stamped.
5> He just asked me for job letter, asked me if I've applied for GC (I have), asked me that don't I have to work with them for a certain time (to which I replied I did and after I was eligible I changed employers using AC-21). He just read the job duties in my H-1B petition (most likely to check for any TAL related stuff). He remarked that inspite of my experience, my close-to-six-figure salary is a bit above slavery (to which I replied that I do get other benefits such as 401k, paid time-off, health/medical insurance etc.). He just asked some other questions such as what was my major in masters, how long I've been in US, had I worked in India, if so how long. I replied all of them. It appears he put that in the comments screen on his PC. And then he said he's approving it.
It was basically a bar-like casual conversation I had with him. Within a few seconds of my start of the interview with IO, I knew he'll approve my visa. so it was pretty cool all along the way.
Can you please let me know which website to book H1B visa interview appointment in Mexico and Canada?
And please guide me on things to keep in mind while going for stamping.
Thanks.
pappu
07-14 10:18 AM
Nobody knows much about when Skil bill will be debated. Webfaxes are a means to influence lawmakers to bring this to the floor of the house. Independent analaysis by a lawfirm based on collection of information from various sources indicates the chance that some business backed bill for high skilled immigrants will be passed this year. There is a 45% chance that it will get passed early next year. You can view details on this link.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7644/2582/1600/chart_alert7.11.2006.gif
photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7644/2582/1600/chart_alert7.11.2006.gif
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7644/2582/1600/chart_alert7.11.2006.gif
photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7644/2582/1600/chart_alert7.11.2006.gif
mchundi
08-05 09:16 PM
get relief from retrogression. Capture of unused visa numbers etc will make us ignore how many apps USCIS received.
Good thing is that people will get interim benefits like EAD/AP.
First they need to cope with the scores of petetions, USCIS and FBI.
For how long will they work overtime to resolve this mess? such bouts as the one we saw in the last two weeks of june are short and few. If they are smart they will flush out the approvable cases early without going thru the EAD cycles year after year.
This is exactly opposite to what they have been doing. If there were 60k approvable cases, i wonder what they were doing all this time. Approving those cases earlier wud have allowed others to get in the system earlier.
Additional VISA numbers may not help anybody, if they don't use them properly
Good thing is that people will get interim benefits like EAD/AP.
First they need to cope with the scores of petetions, USCIS and FBI.
For how long will they work overtime to resolve this mess? such bouts as the one we saw in the last two weeks of june are short and few. If they are smart they will flush out the approvable cases early without going thru the EAD cycles year after year.
This is exactly opposite to what they have been doing. If there were 60k approvable cases, i wonder what they were doing all this time. Approving those cases earlier wud have allowed others to get in the system earlier.
Additional VISA numbers may not help anybody, if they don't use them properly
more...
bkarnik
04-18 09:21 AM
Guys:
Before we get all excited and start signing petitions, please check to confirm whether you are legally safe by doing so. For more information please see this link from Murthy website http://www.murthy.com/news/n_parele.html
I write this because the petition is sponsored by a campaign manager for Kennedy. Please be very careful in signing such petitions. I would recommend discussing any such petition on this forum and getting input from the IV folks or from your lawyers before signing any petition that supports an individual or any particular political party.
Before we get all excited and start signing petitions, please check to confirm whether you are legally safe by doing so. For more information please see this link from Murthy website http://www.murthy.com/news/n_parele.html
I write this because the petition is sponsored by a campaign manager for Kennedy. Please be very careful in signing such petitions. I would recommend discussing any such petition on this forum and getting input from the IV folks or from your lawyers before signing any petition that supports an individual or any particular political party.
sanjaymk
10-19 05:17 PM
Actually, IMO, stocks is a loosers game. Many have tried it and have lost a "lot" of money(including myself). If you would like to make money through investments(i didn't say *stocks*), you should go with something like mutual funds and have a well diversified portfolio across different asset classes.
If you really want to get yourself into stock market investing, the best book(Holy Grail for people like Warren Buffet and many other Mutual Fund managers) to get started on is is The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham. There are tons of discussion forums like morningstar.com that has discussions about finance related topics. You could also get started with Mutual Funds for Dummies, Common Sense book on Investing by John Bogle, The Intelligent Asset Allocator by Bill Bernstein etc., There are tons of other ones, but this would get you started.
But, my 2 cents, have a long term goal, educate yourself on what investing(again, I didn't say stocks) is and get started. Investing is a marathon not a sprint.
Hope this helps.
Sanjay.
If you really want to get yourself into stock market investing, the best book(Holy Grail for people like Warren Buffet and many other Mutual Fund managers) to get started on is is The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham. There are tons of discussion forums like morningstar.com that has discussions about finance related topics. You could also get started with Mutual Funds for Dummies, Common Sense book on Investing by John Bogle, The Intelligent Asset Allocator by Bill Bernstein etc., There are tons of other ones, but this would get you started.
But, my 2 cents, have a long term goal, educate yourself on what investing(again, I didn't say stocks) is and get started. Investing is a marathon not a sprint.
Hope this helps.
Sanjay.
more...
drirshad
04-18 11:18 PM
http://hammondlawgroup.blogspot.com/
Friday, April 13, 2007
Bills Introduced
There have been two bills introduced which may help our cause and are surely of interest to readers of this Blog.
The first is a re-introduction of the SKIL Bill (S. 1083). The text of the bill has not yet been released to the public. It is expected that this will contain the same retrogression-elimination language that was contained in the 2006 version of the bill. The bill was introduced by Senator Cornyn and cosponsors include Senators Allard (R-CO), Bennett (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), and Lott (R-MS). As readers of this blog may be aware, Sen. Hutchison has long been a leader on Schedule A visa reform.
The second bill (S. 1092) seeks to immediately raise the H-1 quota, and was proposed directly as a result of last week�s immediately-reached H-1 visa cap. Sen. Hagel is the sponsor of this bill. The text of this bill is unavailable at this time as well.
Both bills shortly should be available on THOMAS.
UPDATE: As expected the 2007 version of the SKIL Bill contains favorable language.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Bills Introduced
There have been two bills introduced which may help our cause and are surely of interest to readers of this Blog.
The first is a re-introduction of the SKIL Bill (S. 1083). The text of the bill has not yet been released to the public. It is expected that this will contain the same retrogression-elimination language that was contained in the 2006 version of the bill. The bill was introduced by Senator Cornyn and cosponsors include Senators Allard (R-CO), Bennett (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), and Lott (R-MS). As readers of this blog may be aware, Sen. Hutchison has long been a leader on Schedule A visa reform.
The second bill (S. 1092) seeks to immediately raise the H-1 quota, and was proposed directly as a result of last week�s immediately-reached H-1 visa cap. Sen. Hagel is the sponsor of this bill. The text of this bill is unavailable at this time as well.
Both bills shortly should be available on THOMAS.
UPDATE: As expected the 2007 version of the SKIL Bill contains favorable language.
smileyslimey
11-30 01:42 PM
Thanks to everyone who responded.
Appreciate your advice.
regards.
Appreciate your advice.
regards.
more...
hetuweb
10-24 08:15 PM
My case went directly to CSC for H1 extension and is pending since July 10 any idea others have same problem.
Application Type: I129, PETITION FOR A NON IMMIGRANT WORKER
Current Status: Your I129 PETITION FOR A NON IMMIGRANT WORKER was received on July 10, 2006. We will mail you a decision as soon as processing is complete. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. Follow the the link below for current processing dates.
Edit/Delete Message
i have applied on july 09, 2007 at vermont, but still no reply. hope this helps u.
Application Type: I129, PETITION FOR A NON IMMIGRANT WORKER
Current Status: Your I129 PETITION FOR A NON IMMIGRANT WORKER was received on July 10, 2006. We will mail you a decision as soon as processing is complete. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. Follow the the link below for current processing dates.
Edit/Delete Message
i have applied on july 09, 2007 at vermont, but still no reply. hope this helps u.
ujjvalkoul
01-25 04:01 PM
Wow!! Thats great guys...way to go!!
more...
romeshtrisal
10-19 11:06 AM
EB-2, NSC, PD 10/30/07. Only LUD on 11/22/06, since then nothing
ryan
02-03 04:09 PM
That is correct. Mixing and matching with certifications doesn't work. Although I don't know about CPA, if it goes towards professional degree.
Hey there, I have a three year bachelor's (from Australia) and an American CPA. I believe the two can be evaluated to an Ameircan Master's equivalent. Please, check with your lawyers. It should be possible.
Hey there, I have a three year bachelor's (from Australia) and an American CPA. I believe the two can be evaluated to an Ameircan Master's equivalent. Please, check with your lawyers. It should be possible.
more...
Danko
11-27 03:46 AM
Honestly, what does it even matter if it is MS biased? He works at MS, and has every right to focus on that content. :P
I knew it.. :beer2:
Someone said:
It�s hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
btw I am the C# .NET developer, I use it on the server-side all the time - I love it!!
But honestly - every MS client side techology till now (classic forms&post backs... Atlas/MS Ajax) sucked when having a more complex project.
ps. I will install Expression Blend today or tomorrow and start working with it... :geek: However, I know that solutions that work cross-platform and cross-OS currently come from Adobe only (AIR). ;) So I think it's at least worth mentioning...
I knew it.. :beer2:
Someone said:
It�s hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
btw I am the C# .NET developer, I use it on the server-side all the time - I love it!!
But honestly - every MS client side techology till now (classic forms&post backs... Atlas/MS Ajax) sucked when having a more complex project.
ps. I will install Expression Blend today or tomorrow and start working with it... :geek: However, I know that solutions that work cross-platform and cross-OS currently come from Adobe only (AIR). ;) So I think it's at least worth mentioning...
Ramba
12-23 04:11 PM
If i-485 has been pending for more than 6 months and I suddenly get laid off can i leave the country and come back when it's approved? Or can I leave the country and come back in a few months with or without job offer?
No you cant do that. One should not leave country when 485 pending. Once you laid off from sponsor you can not do counsural processing also. Travelling in AP should be for a mimimum period. It will be big mistake, if you leave country without job offer. No one knows when they issue RFE for employment verification during your 485 pending period. If you do not have job when they issue RFE, thats it. Bottomline is, it is better to be employed during 485 pending and stay in the country to reply any RFE.
No you cant do that. One should not leave country when 485 pending. Once you laid off from sponsor you can not do counsural processing also. Travelling in AP should be for a mimimum period. It will be big mistake, if you leave country without job offer. No one knows when they issue RFE for employment verification during your 485 pending period. If you do not have job when they issue RFE, thats it. Bottomline is, it is better to be employed during 485 pending and stay in the country to reply any RFE.
more...
amitkhare77
08-26 03:04 PM
Is this true? I think once you start using EAD your H status is imiidiately invalid. she needs to go out of the country and get the H1B stamped in order to work on H1b.
She can always have the H1 in her back pocket for back up
She can always have the H1 in her back pocket for back up
phillyag
07-20 02:14 PM
Any expected timelines for getting the receipt notice from USCIS? I filed on Jul17th.
more...
mbawa2574
07-17 04:06 PM
These are government matters and you can only speculate based on information that comes out through unofficial resources. Looks like we have good resources for this information. Please wait for the official announcement.
Rockford
07-16 02:57 PM
Guys , read the core update on the home page !!!
reddymjm
03-06 09:00 AM
Hey fill in ur info.
shaikhshehzadali
07-29 03:35 PM
If that's the way u think...This is how it will work
Yeah right....come to US on tourist Visa when ur wife is pregnant.....let your child be born during that trip...and get a green card..
Hi there,
IV seems to be a terrific service to the immigration community. Kudos to the people who work hard to make it work.
Has anyone heard of cases where immigration lawyers have successfully petitioned on behalf of parents of a US baby (way before the age of 18) to become GC holders or citizens?
Yeah right....come to US on tourist Visa when ur wife is pregnant.....let your child be born during that trip...and get a green card..
Hi there,
IV seems to be a terrific service to the immigration community. Kudos to the people who work hard to make it work.
Has anyone heard of cases where immigration lawyers have successfully petitioned on behalf of parents of a US baby (way before the age of 18) to become GC holders or citizens?
immieb2
10-14 09:04 AM
I went to the Chennai consulate in July 2008 with blue jeans and bright colored T shirt and I got my H1 visa stamped. No issues. But I sure felt like the odd man out there, NO ONE else was wearing a jeans and shirt. At the interview she asked me how is the weather in Michigan, that's about it..
Is it mandatory to wear business formal? I am going to get visa stamping with my wife, she is applying for H4.
Thanks!
Is it mandatory to wear business formal? I am going to get visa stamping with my wife, she is applying for H4.
Thanks!
No comments:
Post a Comment