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.
wallpaper Win Min: Hindu God Ganesh
rnvd
10-30 03:48 PM
Hi all,
Here is my story. In December 2004 i went to India and i came back on the same month. At the PortOfEntry(POE), the Officer given I-94 based on the my the Visa of my previous company which is valid upto Jan 1, 2006.
But i had already have approved H1B which is valid upto Jan 21, 2007. At that time, i didn't know it is a problem based on LastActionRule. When the time to file for my H1B extension(basically 7th Year) in the month of November 2006, my attorney find that i am technically out of status because of my I-94 is overriden by PortOfEntry eventhough i had H1B Approval with I-94. My Attorney explained about mistake by POE to USCIS when we filed my H1B extension and the USCIS approved my extension for 1 year from Jan22, 2007 to Mar30, 2008 because my Labor is pending. Recently this march my H1B extended to 3 more years based on I-140 approval.
My question is if i will to India for vacation this November is there any problem in the port of entry. I haven't travelled since Dec,2004. I am going to use AdvanceParole(AP) on this vacation. Eventhough my attorney says there is no problem to go to India because we got two H1B approvals after the I-94 problem, but i am not 100% confident because at the POE they may create a problem. Can anybody please tell if u had same or similar problem and successfully travelled in and out of USA.
Here is my story. In December 2004 i went to India and i came back on the same month. At the PortOfEntry(POE), the Officer given I-94 based on the my the Visa of my previous company which is valid upto Jan 1, 2006.
But i had already have approved H1B which is valid upto Jan 21, 2007. At that time, i didn't know it is a problem based on LastActionRule. When the time to file for my H1B extension(basically 7th Year) in the month of November 2006, my attorney find that i am technically out of status because of my I-94 is overriden by PortOfEntry eventhough i had H1B Approval with I-94. My Attorney explained about mistake by POE to USCIS when we filed my H1B extension and the USCIS approved my extension for 1 year from Jan22, 2007 to Mar30, 2008 because my Labor is pending. Recently this march my H1B extended to 3 more years based on I-140 approval.
My question is if i will to India for vacation this November is there any problem in the port of entry. I haven't travelled since Dec,2004. I am going to use AdvanceParole(AP) on this vacation. Eventhough my attorney says there is no problem to go to India because we got two H1B approvals after the I-94 problem, but i am not 100% confident because at the POE they may create a problem. Can anybody please tell if u had same or similar problem and successfully travelled in and out of USA.
rajbgp2002
12-22 07:28 PM
thanks for all response.
It was very helpful in understanding.
I wonder how strictly the SAME OR SIMILAR job is defined.
Should the job description match exactly the labor certification.
It was very helpful in understanding.
I wonder how strictly the SAME OR SIMILAR job is defined.
Should the job description match exactly the labor certification.
2011 god ganesh wallpapers. god
pathiren
07-19 10:14 PM
Congrats to all those who are lucky enough to file their I-485 by August 17. I am kind of on the unlucky side. My mandatory labor recruitment wait period of 30 days end on August 17. Wonder if anyone has any idea about I-485 availability or unavailability by september or october or may even next time this year to use up the available numbers.
I appreciate all your responses.
Thanks
HP
I appreciate all your responses.
Thanks
HP
more...
blizkreeg
01-26 12:44 PM
Seriously, who cares that Andhra bagged 7 ranks. How on earth is it relevant to the discussion going on here? Plus this isn't a forum for Indians only(and I'm Indian).
Stop posting these nonsense, amateur messages.
Stop posting these nonsense, amateur messages.
mallu
06-07 04:09 PM
.
more...
amitjoey
03-18 04:24 PM
Hello
I have substituted a Labor in 2004, My priority date is 4/4/2002. My I-140 is pending since May 2004 and i renew my EAD every year, EAD expires in July 2008. I got my 9th year H1 extensions till july 2007 from the same company/employer.
I tried to change the employer and file a new H1 which was denied this month. The reason for denial is USCIS is not satisfied with the place of work, I have re-applied H1 again on the same company. Now can i apply another NEW H1 from a different company.
I am tensed as my I-140 has been pending since so long....can someone please help me in this matter and suggest me what to do.
Thanks
Raghu
My I140 has been pending for a long time too, without any reason. So finally after many service requests, I have talked to one of the senators of my state. I have explained the situation, ofcourse used the opportunity to highlight IV and EB immigrants problems and then talked about my specific case. There is a routine paperwork that my senators office has that they use to get authorisation from individuals like us to pursue the case with the USCIS. I have filled that paperwork and the request to look into my case. I have a strong notion that it is going to work. The senators office had looked into an earlier case for me with success where I needed to obtain a pending AP in a hurry. I have my own labor (NO Substitute)
I have no idea what the deal is with the H1- Why it was denied.
I suggest you talk to your senator's office.
I have substituted a Labor in 2004, My priority date is 4/4/2002. My I-140 is pending since May 2004 and i renew my EAD every year, EAD expires in July 2008. I got my 9th year H1 extensions till july 2007 from the same company/employer.
I tried to change the employer and file a new H1 which was denied this month. The reason for denial is USCIS is not satisfied with the place of work, I have re-applied H1 again on the same company. Now can i apply another NEW H1 from a different company.
I am tensed as my I-140 has been pending since so long....can someone please help me in this matter and suggest me what to do.
Thanks
Raghu
My I140 has been pending for a long time too, without any reason. So finally after many service requests, I have talked to one of the senators of my state. I have explained the situation, ofcourse used the opportunity to highlight IV and EB immigrants problems and then talked about my specific case. There is a routine paperwork that my senators office has that they use to get authorisation from individuals like us to pursue the case with the USCIS. I have filled that paperwork and the request to look into my case. I have a strong notion that it is going to work. The senators office had looked into an earlier case for me with success where I needed to obtain a pending AP in a hurry. I have my own labor (NO Substitute)
I have no idea what the deal is with the H1- Why it was denied.
I suggest you talk to your senator's office.
2010 wallpaper god ganesh. wallpaper god ganesh. wallpaper god ganesh. fireshot91
Aah_GC
05-30 03:46 PM
Also when quitting what is the must-have documents we need to secure before leaving employer X.
Can someone please reply on this
If you can get your hands on photocopies of Labor certificate, that would be awesome. Otherwise, make sure you at least have the following -
1. Experience letter (with last day of attendance)
2. I140 receipt
3. I485 receipt
4. Paystubs for 6 months of employment post I1485 receive date
You are good to go from there.
Can someone please reply on this
If you can get your hands on photocopies of Labor certificate, that would be awesome. Otherwise, make sure you at least have the following -
1. Experience letter (with last day of attendance)
2. I140 receipt
3. I485 receipt
4. Paystubs for 6 months of employment post I1485 receive date
You are good to go from there.
more...
saileshdude
05-20 10:12 PM
From what I understand, if you have an H1b extended based on your Labor or I140 approval, if your I485 is denied, all applications/extensions based on your Adjustment of Status also expire.
From the lawyers' perspective, all of them promoting H1bs is more a business push than a 'favorable situation for the applicant' push.
Most EAD/AP applications/renewals are now filed by applicants directly, whereas H1Bs go thru the lawyers.
But keeping the moolah part aside, why would an EAD be invalid whereas a H1b be valid, when both are based on the Green Card application?
Because there are no clear regulations around what happens to H1 if I-485 gets denied. But there are existing regulations that EAD becomes invalid. So being on H1 gives you an edge. You will not able to extend/transfer H1 but there is no effect on existing approved h1.
Also even if you use EAD you can actually get back on H1 status without being counted against the quota as long as your I-485 is pending. But you will need to go out and get H1 stamped and re-enter. In this particular case, since father was primary applicant he could have sponsored new H1 w/o I-94 and get it stamped and re-enter. Not sure why lawyer did not suggest that.
From the lawyers' perspective, all of them promoting H1bs is more a business push than a 'favorable situation for the applicant' push.
Most EAD/AP applications/renewals are now filed by applicants directly, whereas H1Bs go thru the lawyers.
But keeping the moolah part aside, why would an EAD be invalid whereas a H1b be valid, when both are based on the Green Card application?
Because there are no clear regulations around what happens to H1 if I-485 gets denied. But there are existing regulations that EAD becomes invalid. So being on H1 gives you an edge. You will not able to extend/transfer H1 but there is no effect on existing approved h1.
Also even if you use EAD you can actually get back on H1 status without being counted against the quota as long as your I-485 is pending. But you will need to go out and get H1 stamped and re-enter. In this particular case, since father was primary applicant he could have sponsored new H1 w/o I-94 and get it stamped and re-enter. Not sure why lawyer did not suggest that.
hair god ganesh wallpapers.
bsbawa10
08-21 10:23 AM
You must ask the badge number and note down the time of each call. Then file a complaint if you are not satisfied with the customer service experience.
Once we have a proof of hundreds of such written complaints, IV can also follow up. We need people to file 'written' complaints in order to help improve the service.
I do not have any ID (She spoke that too quickly) but I know the time (8 am cst) and I am prepared to give the written complaint.
Once we have a proof of hundreds of such written complaints, IV can also follow up. We need people to file 'written' complaints in order to help improve the service.
I do not have any ID (She spoke that too quickly) but I know the time (8 am cst) and I am prepared to give the written complaint.
more...
tinuverma
03-17 12:51 PM
Hello everyone,
My current project is ending. My client company has offered to take me full time and I am considering H1 transfer or using my EAD. Here is my Q:
The client company is small. Will that be an issue? Is there a minimum requirement on how big the company has to be able to use EAD safely?
Thanks
My current project is ending. My client company has offered to take me full time and I am considering H1 transfer or using my EAD. Here is my Q:
The client company is small. Will that be an issue? Is there a minimum requirement on how big the company has to be able to use EAD safely?
Thanks
hot Hindu God Ganesh visarjan
morpheus
04-02 10:45 PM
I just did some further reading and research, and it appears that an H1 could do the following if this bill passed tomorrow.
1. Quit their job
2. Form an LLC and self-employ
3. File for 218D status. Once this is approved, you are able to work anywhere. It's not clear if there will be a filing procedure or not.
4. Wait six years.
5. File for green card. Note that 218D requires you to work for the entire six years - but it can be full-time, part-time, self-employment or full time study.
I can't believe it could be that simple. The only downside is that there might be 10 million people in the queue for 218D, so it will probably be backlogged until 2026!
1. Quit their job
2. Form an LLC and self-employ
3. File for 218D status. Once this is approved, you are able to work anywhere. It's not clear if there will be a filing procedure or not.
4. Wait six years.
5. File for green card. Note that 218D requires you to work for the entire six years - but it can be full-time, part-time, self-employment or full time study.
I can't believe it could be that simple. The only downside is that there might be 10 million people in the queue for 218D, so it will probably be backlogged until 2026!
more...
house god ganesh wallpapers.
genius
12-14 05:34 PM
My OPT expires around May.I believe the best way is to join some school rather than going for any other Visa Category?isnt it?
Btw ,I asked many lawyers about the OPT extension and they said there is a very little chance that USCIS will approve it unless you have a very very good reason.They are not fools afterall...
I have a Masters from here..and I will be on my F1 again.Offcourse as expected ,the H1B is going to run out in less than a month next year.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
once again.I will aplly for H1B in April and my OPT expires sometime in May?
Does Kaplan provide courses that issue an I-20?
Thanks in advance!!!!
Btw ,I asked many lawyers about the OPT extension and they said there is a very little chance that USCIS will approve it unless you have a very very good reason.They are not fools afterall...
I have a Masters from here..and I will be on my F1 again.Offcourse as expected ,the H1B is going to run out in less than a month next year.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
once again.I will aplly for H1B in April and my OPT expires sometime in May?
Does Kaplan provide courses that issue an I-20?
Thanks in advance!!!!
tattoo Indian God Ganesha wallpapers,
jvs_annapurna
04-20 02:32 PM
Hi guys
There is lot of misunderstanding. As i mentioned my H1 extension was denied on 31st march
Then i worked out with a lawyer for my options. She said i can get H1 transfer. I filed H1 transfer premium processing on april 6th with new employer(american company).It was approved on 13th and we received it on april 16th.
There is lot of misunderstanding. As i mentioned my H1 extension was denied on 31st march
Then i worked out with a lawyer for my options. She said i can get H1 transfer. I filed H1 transfer premium processing on april 6th with new employer(american company).It was approved on 13th and we received it on april 16th.
more...
pictures God shiv, God Ganesh,
YesGC_NoGC
01-09 04:35 PM
I know atleast 2 in my close group.
What are you trying to get to?
talking about only personal friends or co-workers. Please do not vote yes if its some body you don't know but heard of.
What are you trying to get to?
talking about only personal friends or co-workers. Please do not vote yes if its some body you don't know but heard of.
dresses iphone god ganesha wallpaper
desidas
01-22 08:01 PM
What do yo mean by siwtching employer using AC-21 and again H1B status? Do you mean that you have a H1B with the new company? In that case isnt that just a H1B transfer? noa Ac021 switch?
I am also in similar situation.
I have pending I-485 and used AC21 to switch to the new company but I am still in H1B status. However, my wife is using EAD and she need to travel using AP.
Can anyone suggest whether there will be any issue in travelling outside USA, if I (Primary applicant) is still in H1B status but used AC-21 and wife is using EAD (has to use AP)?
Thanks in advance.
BK
I am also in similar situation.
I have pending I-485 and used AC21 to switch to the new company but I am still in H1B status. However, my wife is using EAD and she need to travel using AP.
Can anyone suggest whether there will be any issue in travelling outside USA, if I (Primary applicant) is still in H1B status but used AC-21 and wife is using EAD (has to use AP)?
Thanks in advance.
BK
more...
makeup 2010 Ganesh Chaturthi 2010
anilsal
10-27 10:09 AM
as the chapter leaders can appraise you of what is possible, what is the view of leaders towards skilled immigration etc.
Rather than vent your frustration on the forums, direct them constructively to some IV activity.
Rather than vent your frustration on the forums, direct them constructively to some IV activity.
girlfriend God Ganesha Wallpapers
rimzhim
02-09 04:02 PM
Please keep this thread alive ...
sledge hammer:
can you explain if the new labors being cleared in the BEC centers (approximately 150K are still pending) are from 2001-2003?
In 2003, there should be a demand of 23% of 300K (couting spouses)=69K. Total visas are about 140K per annum. So there should be some movement. i dont understand why there will be no movement.
sledge hammer:
can you explain if the new labors being cleared in the BEC centers (approximately 150K are still pending) are from 2001-2003?
In 2003, there should be a demand of 23% of 300K (couting spouses)=69K. Total visas are about 140K per annum. So there should be some movement. i dont understand why there will be no movement.
hairstyles Flower Ganesha Wallpaper
imm_pro
07-18 01:03 PM
This suggested flower campaign is to send flowers to DOL (Atlanta) and not USCIS.
Members please support or suggest ideas to expedite Atlanta labor processing time.
Members please support or suggest ideas to expedite Atlanta labor processing time.
walking_dude
09-07 01:08 PM
IV Core,
I have chosen to participate in the Law makers meeting and received the Talking points ( no confirmed appointments yet)
I know IV has tailored it's agenda after much thought and deliberation. However, it's my personal opinion that some points may need to be tailored based on the party affiliation of the law maker we are speaking to, as one size doesn't fit all.
Pro-labor demands may find resonance with a Congressman of labor background, but may not sit well the pro-employer Republican. ( point 5 of IV agenda). Also Point 7 may not be liked by a Democrat as it places haves before the havenots.
My question is can we tailor it based on whom we are speaking to or keep it standard if some points are disliked by the lawmakers?
I haven't mentioned the actual points as I'm not sure if they can be discussed here. Is it okay to discuss it here? Or is it better discussed offline?
I have chosen to participate in the Law makers meeting and received the Talking points ( no confirmed appointments yet)
I know IV has tailored it's agenda after much thought and deliberation. However, it's my personal opinion that some points may need to be tailored based on the party affiliation of the law maker we are speaking to, as one size doesn't fit all.
Pro-labor demands may find resonance with a Congressman of labor background, but may not sit well the pro-employer Republican. ( point 5 of IV agenda). Also Point 7 may not be liked by a Democrat as it places haves before the havenots.
My question is can we tailor it based on whom we are speaking to or keep it standard if some points are disliked by the lawmakers?
I haven't mentioned the actual points as I'm not sure if they can be discussed here. Is it okay to discuss it here? Or is it better discussed offline?
miguy
03-16 09:16 AM
well, the connection is that if you get the Statement of Need from Canada, you can go to Canada to satisfy the 2 years j1-home residency requirement. While, if you get the SON from India, you would have to go to India. You have talked about plan B in your earlier post, I am a Canadian Citizen and my wife a Canadian PR(we live in Canada). So, if she gets a residency on J1, the worst is that she could come to Canada to satisfy the 2 yr requirement.
No comments:
Post a Comment