Munna Bhai
12-14 10:16 AM
Well you can always get the Equivalence Certificate from know Evaluator. USCIS also uses few Evaluators� for various purposes. You should find one of those and get the Evaluation done by them. 3 year Indian degree is VERY MUCH equal to a 4 years BS degree in the US. It's very interesting they way these evaluators do it.
It is true that you can use evaluators but things may get tough very soon, hence my request to everyone is "be prepared" and do let us know.
It is true that you can use evaluators but things may get tough very soon, hence my request to everyone is "be prepared" and do let us know.
wallpaper cute anime wolf girl.
qtoask
07-05 11:22 AM
OK.. We have almost 200 Ready to send flowers...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6025
1. The date will be July 10.
2. Color of the flower is white (peace)
Q1. Let us know Where to send....
Q2. Also if you can pen 3 or 4 lines what message to send along with the flowers.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6025
1. The date will be July 10.
2. Color of the flower is white (peace)
Q1. Let us know Where to send....
Q2. Also if you can pen 3 or 4 lines what message to send along with the flowers.
cahimmihelp
07-15 12:56 PM
Hi,
This is my second effort to get the answer. There are so many posts on this kind of topics but I am not getting any clear answer. I would appreciate if someone can throw the light on this topic.:confused:
I am working with a consulting company and my company filed for my GC in 2009 (PD is 25-Feb-2009). I received my I-140 approval on 28-Feb-2010. Now the client where I am working, has offered my a fulltime job and GC processing. I have received mutual consent from my current company for any legal issues. Now, if I join the new company and file my GC from there, can I port my Priority date for the new processing? Also, what should be the earliest joining date? What all other precautions should I take while filing GC with the new company?
I received the offer on 07/09 and have to give my decision by 07/15. I would appreciate if anyone can help. I got one day extension in deadline. Please answer someone...
Thanks a lot,
CAH
This is my second effort to get the answer. There are so many posts on this kind of topics but I am not getting any clear answer. I would appreciate if someone can throw the light on this topic.:confused:
I am working with a consulting company and my company filed for my GC in 2009 (PD is 25-Feb-2009). I received my I-140 approval on 28-Feb-2010. Now the client where I am working, has offered my a fulltime job and GC processing. I have received mutual consent from my current company for any legal issues. Now, if I join the new company and file my GC from there, can I port my Priority date for the new processing? Also, what should be the earliest joining date? What all other precautions should I take while filing GC with the new company?
I received the offer on 07/09 and have to give my decision by 07/15. I would appreciate if anyone can help. I got one day extension in deadline. Please answer someone...
Thanks a lot,
CAH
2011 What kind of girl are you?
jthomas
05-06 03:44 PM
This conference is for lawyers and employers and organized by lawyers. The organizers are charging fees for it too.
So what will IV gain by meeting lawyers and paying money to just get in?
Or by showing our face to USCIS official, Do you think by showing your face you will get your greencard and can promote IV? If that is true why don't you go and sit in front of USCIS and show your face to everyone entering that building?
And if you want to go then go. Why do you want IV to pay your $350?
Doing something is always better than doing nothing. If IV members would go for the meeting there are chances that they would meet some people and talk to them. In the next meeting these people would go to the stage and talk about IV. If one does not do anything there is a high chance that one would do anything in future.
Please motivate IV members to do something. It does not matter whether it would bear results or not. After few errors they would be doing better and right things. Lets walk the talk and not talk talk talk.
So what will IV gain by meeting lawyers and paying money to just get in?
Or by showing our face to USCIS official, Do you think by showing your face you will get your greencard and can promote IV? If that is true why don't you go and sit in front of USCIS and show your face to everyone entering that building?
And if you want to go then go. Why do you want IV to pay your $350?
Doing something is always better than doing nothing. If IV members would go for the meeting there are chances that they would meet some people and talk to them. In the next meeting these people would go to the stage and talk about IV. If one does not do anything there is a high chance that one would do anything in future.
Please motivate IV members to do something. It does not matter whether it would bear results or not. After few errors they would be doing better and right things. Lets walk the talk and not talk talk talk.
more...
sureshvd
10-15 11:15 AM
Hi svr_76,
By accepting citizenship will not make you "FORIEGN". Even after 10 yrs you still be looked as Indian immigrant after all. You are right in a sense that sooner we all will cry for for PIO card.
By accepting citizenship will not make you "FORIEGN". Even after 10 yrs you still be looked as Indian immigrant after all. You are right in a sense that sooner we all will cry for for PIO card.
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
pappusheth
05-02 11:51 AM
based on what bbct said, they'll give me i-94 with expiry in Aug 2009 which is my visa expiry date (I don't have AP). just curious.. how does the i-94 expiry date matter? what significance does that date have?
Secondly, my wife does not have h1/h4 but has an EAD (485 pending status). She will be entering with me using her AP which is valid thru June 05, 2009. I'm guessing entering US should not be a problem since we're entering on May 11th. But I guess the expiry on her I-94 will be June 05, 2009. Again, what role does that date on I-94 play?
Thanks guys for your replies. I've found it very helpful to clear confusion and have peace of mind while travelling.
pappusheth
Secondly, my wife does not have h1/h4 but has an EAD (485 pending status). She will be entering with me using her AP which is valid thru June 05, 2009. I'm guessing entering US should not be a problem since we're entering on May 11th. But I guess the expiry on her I-94 will be June 05, 2009. Again, what role does that date on I-94 play?
Thanks guys for your replies. I've found it very helpful to clear confusion and have peace of mind while travelling.
pappusheth
2010 race:demon gender:female
sumansk
09-26 04:52 PM
Same thing with me.. every time I call they say wait 90 days.Even I tried to tell them that its more than 90 days old that I sent..without luck...
Thanks
Thanks
more...
chanduv23
11-06 07:46 AM
My Mother in law flew with them, and her experience was good.
How old are your folks? Sometimes, this may sound a bit cheesy, but getting wheelchair always helps. What that does is, it guarantees your folks will be at the correct gates, at right times.
I got her a wheelchair, and she had a smooth transition.....
hope that helps...
Thanks for the response, they are 57 and 53 years and healthy, will it make sense to request for a wheelchair? Maybe we can request for one of them :)
How old are your folks? Sometimes, this may sound a bit cheesy, but getting wheelchair always helps. What that does is, it guarantees your folks will be at the correct gates, at right times.
I got her a wheelchair, and she had a smooth transition.....
hope that helps...
Thanks for the response, they are 57 and 53 years and healthy, will it make sense to request for a wheelchair? Maybe we can request for one of them :)
hair hair anime wolf child. Anime Wolf Demon Girl. anime wolf child. anime wolf
acsouza
03-19 01:15 AM
So I asked my company's HR and the following is the reply I obtained:
<company name omitted> participates in E-Verify, which is a government run program that verifies work eligibility with the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration. E-Verify requires that List A documents (your EAD card is a List A doc) must contain a photo ID which the receipt does not contain. This is required because when your information is entered into E-Verify, a picture of your EAD card appears, I then have to confirm the picture in their data base matches your physical card. Due to us participating in E-Verify we must comply with their regulations which trumps regular I-9 requirements and we will have to wait until your EAD card arrives.
So according to the company I will work for the receipt would be a valid doc for List C of the I-9, yet their E-Verify regulations require me to present a document from List A.
I am sad. Completely ran out of money. Glad I have friends willing to lend me money at this difficult time or I would starve.
<company name omitted> participates in E-Verify, which is a government run program that verifies work eligibility with the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration. E-Verify requires that List A documents (your EAD card is a List A doc) must contain a photo ID which the receipt does not contain. This is required because when your information is entered into E-Verify, a picture of your EAD card appears, I then have to confirm the picture in their data base matches your physical card. Due to us participating in E-Verify we must comply with their regulations which trumps regular I-9 requirements and we will have to wait until your EAD card arrives.
So according to the company I will work for the receipt would be a valid doc for List C of the I-9, yet their E-Verify regulations require me to present a document from List A.
I am sad. Completely ran out of money. Glad I have friends willing to lend me money at this difficult time or I would starve.
more...
sanz
03-31 12:07 PM
Sen. Grassley calls for new L-1 visa probe
Raises concern that a 2006 report on L-1 visa was ignored
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa) has asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspector general to investigate the L-1 visa program, saying he is increasingly concerned about loopholes in it.
Grassley on Tuesday released a letter to Charles Edwards, the DHS inspector general, asking him to dust off a 2006 inspector general report about the visa program and find out why the report's recommendations "were never implemented."
Grassley, who has been pressing for reforms of the H-1B visa, said he wants to find out the number of L-1 visa holders now living in the U.S.
The L-1 is used for multinational companies to bring employees into the U.S. and doesn't have has many restrictions as the H-1B visa, such as a prevailing wage requirement.
In his letter, Grassley wrote that "there's growing concern by many experts that companies are turning to L visas when the supply of H-1B visas are low. There is also a general consensus that L visas are being used to bring in 'rank and file' employees rather than top-level professionals with truly 'specialized knowledge.'" Specialized knowledge usually means advanced knowledge or expertise in a field.
In the 2006 study, the DHS's inspector general report referred to the L-1 visa as "the computer visa." It reported that from 1999 to 2004, nine of the 10 firms that petitioned for the most L-1 workers were computer and IT-related outsourcing service firms that specialized in labor from India. The number of L-1 petitions approved from 1995 to 2005, in most years, was just over 40,000. In 2001, nearly 60,000 were approved.
The report also found that the visa program was vulnerable to abuse and made several recommendations, including requiring immigration enforcement officers to assist in "checking the bona fides" of L visa petitions; putting in place a process for overseas verification of a petition; and clarifying what was meant by specialized knowledge, a requirement for the visa similar to what is asked for in H-1B visas.
Grassley said he wanted another look at the program because, "I have grown increasingly concerned that loopholes within the L-1 visa program have led to manipulation and broad overreach by those who use the program and have resulted in a great deal of fraud and abuse within the program
Raises concern that a 2006 report on L-1 visa was ignored
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa) has asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspector general to investigate the L-1 visa program, saying he is increasingly concerned about loopholes in it.
Grassley on Tuesday released a letter to Charles Edwards, the DHS inspector general, asking him to dust off a 2006 inspector general report about the visa program and find out why the report's recommendations "were never implemented."
Grassley, who has been pressing for reforms of the H-1B visa, said he wants to find out the number of L-1 visa holders now living in the U.S.
The L-1 is used for multinational companies to bring employees into the U.S. and doesn't have has many restrictions as the H-1B visa, such as a prevailing wage requirement.
In his letter, Grassley wrote that "there's growing concern by many experts that companies are turning to L visas when the supply of H-1B visas are low. There is also a general consensus that L visas are being used to bring in 'rank and file' employees rather than top-level professionals with truly 'specialized knowledge.'" Specialized knowledge usually means advanced knowledge or expertise in a field.
In the 2006 study, the DHS's inspector general report referred to the L-1 visa as "the computer visa." It reported that from 1999 to 2004, nine of the 10 firms that petitioned for the most L-1 workers were computer and IT-related outsourcing service firms that specialized in labor from India. The number of L-1 petitions approved from 1995 to 2005, in most years, was just over 40,000. In 2001, nearly 60,000 were approved.
The report also found that the visa program was vulnerable to abuse and made several recommendations, including requiring immigration enforcement officers to assist in "checking the bona fides" of L visa petitions; putting in place a process for overseas verification of a petition; and clarifying what was meant by specialized knowledge, a requirement for the visa similar to what is asked for in H-1B visas.
Grassley said he wanted another look at the program because, "I have grown increasingly concerned that loopholes within the L-1 visa program have led to manipulation and broad overreach by those who use the program and have resulted in a great deal of fraud and abuse within the program
hot not turn into a full wolf
morchu
05-21 12:39 AM
I believe he just meant to say "not possible with one 140".
He just mentioned it in a confusing way.
"A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date."
The petition mentioned here is an I140 for EB1/EB2/EB3.
So it doesn't hurt to have more I140s approved. Whenever you do a "subsequent" petition, you just claim the earliest priority date (of the already approved ones).
I understand two I-140s, one existing (EB-3) and second new I-140 (EB2), but you have also mentioned more. Why need more than two, in what circumstances?
He just mentioned it in a confusing way.
"A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date."
The petition mentioned here is an I140 for EB1/EB2/EB3.
So it doesn't hurt to have more I140s approved. Whenever you do a "subsequent" petition, you just claim the earliest priority date (of the already approved ones).
I understand two I-140s, one existing (EB-3) and second new I-140 (EB2), but you have also mentioned more. Why need more than two, in what circumstances?
more...
house LIKES: Wolves, Anime, Comics,
Kevin M
April 3rd, 2005, 04:58 PM
An alternative treatment would be to dual process (I am assuming it is a raw file). The one above looks about right for the sky area. Another conversion with + exposure compensation for the shadows and blend the two in your editing software.
Nice image of Half Dome.
Kevin
http://homepage.eircom.net/~bot/paint/photo.htm
Nice image of Half Dome.
Kevin
http://homepage.eircom.net/~bot/paint/photo.htm
tattoo picture
arpu31
11-13 07:35 PM
I came to USA in March-2009 on H4 visa, I have H4 visa stamp on my passport valid till 2011 which is my husband�s valid H1 date. Then i applied for H1B through one of consulting companies. I got H1B approval in June-2009. I am searching for the project from June-2009 but, don't have project till date. So now i wanted to change my status again from H1B to H4. I believe my H1B is automatically activated on 1st Oct 2009. I still don�t have any paychecks since I did not get the project and haven�t yet applied for SSN.
So my questions are,
1.Can I apply for visa status change from H1B to H4 in USA or
a. I need to go outside USA and reapply for H4 visa in my home country or
b.just go outside USA and enter back with my current H4 on my passport which is valid until 2011?
2. Is there any alternative that I can apply for status change from H1B to H4 immediately in USA to continue my H4 visa again and can get H4 visa stamp in future when I will go outside USA?
3. Do I need to show paystubs from Oct-2009 while applying for H4 COS in USA while filling the form?
4. Is there a 60 day rule during which I need to apply for my SSN? What would happen if I delay applying for my SSN?
5. Under what scenarios and When would I be considered out of status?
Thank You in advance.
Arpu
So my questions are,
1.Can I apply for visa status change from H1B to H4 in USA or
a. I need to go outside USA and reapply for H4 visa in my home country or
b.just go outside USA and enter back with my current H4 on my passport which is valid until 2011?
2. Is there any alternative that I can apply for status change from H1B to H4 immediately in USA to continue my H4 visa again and can get H4 visa stamp in future when I will go outside USA?
3. Do I need to show paystubs from Oct-2009 while applying for H4 COS in USA while filling the form?
4. Is there a 60 day rule during which I need to apply for my SSN? What would happen if I delay applying for my SSN?
5. Under what scenarios and When would I be considered out of status?
Thank You in advance.
Arpu
more...
pictures Anime Wolf Demon Girl - Wolf
akred
07-07 12:57 PM
Rated 5 stars.
dresses anime wolf girl with black
sandy_anand
01-24 10:09 AM
Guys, sorry I do not understand the numbers very well. Assuming the same amount of spillover numbers for 2011, what will be the status of EB2 by December-2011??
Thanks,
Prasad.
If EB2-India receives around 20000 visas in 2011, the EB2-India priority dates could move to between Feb 2007 and April 2007 depending on EB3-EB2 upgrades.
Thanks,
Prasad.
If EB2-India receives around 20000 visas in 2011, the EB2-India priority dates could move to between Feb 2007 and April 2007 depending on EB3-EB2 upgrades.
more...
makeup cute anime wolf girl. anime
dilipb
04-21 03:20 PM
This query is for a friend of mine.
His labor and 140 was pre-approved.
In jun 2007 he applied for 485 / EAD and AP.
He got EAD, is working on it.
He also used AP to go to india and back.
His H1 is already expired this month.
All he has is a new AP based new i94 which expires on the day his EAD expires.
Now his drivers license is expiring.
Does anyone know the documents he will be required to submit to DL center to get DL extended.
Also the most important thing is, can the DL somehow be extended for more than 1 year. Because doing this every year is a pain.
Thanks in advance.
His labor and 140 was pre-approved.
In jun 2007 he applied for 485 / EAD and AP.
He got EAD, is working on it.
He also used AP to go to india and back.
His H1 is already expired this month.
All he has is a new AP based new i94 which expires on the day his EAD expires.
Now his drivers license is expiring.
Does anyone know the documents he will be required to submit to DL center to get DL extended.
Also the most important thing is, can the DL somehow be extended for more than 1 year. Because doing this every year is a pain.
Thanks in advance.
girlfriend anime wolf demon girl
gcformeornot
04-08 01:19 PM
recently there has been changes to address where paper filed application will go...
I prefer to file AP application online because no FP involved...
I prefer to file AP application online because no FP involved...
hairstyles anime wolf demon. demon anime
Img
10-18 10:34 AM
Guys, I dont see any provision to contribute one time $50. Is there any way I can do it ?
Thanks
RK
Thanks
RK
willwin
07-09 10:07 AM
It is untrue that IV does not care for CP filers.
One should not blame IV for not taking up a cause. IV is everyone. Core team is simply assisting the community in the general management of the organization. It is the community that powers all efforts.
We have had mostly AOS members till now and thus the focus has been on AOS. If you wanted CP in the tracker, let us know and we will add it.It is a minor issue. We haven't had anyone telling us till now or even telling us the bugs in the tracker so that we can improve it.
If you feel strongly that this is a genuine problem for CP filers, and everyone stuck in it can present compelling case for it, please feel free to lead the effort. IV will help you with guidance. Recently several members stuck in Perm audit delays approached IV and they took the initiative to start a campaign. I think this is how IV should evolve for future so that people can help themselves using this platform. IV is willing to help anyone stuck in the EB immigration system. Could you find more people like yourself stuck in CP filing in one place on this forum and discuss amongst yourself various ideas and strategies to find a solution to the problem. IV core will be available for guidance and advice.
Pappu,
Thanks for the response! I really appreciate that.
I said IV doesn't care for CP filers because there are no provision for CP filers in IV's agenda (ofcourse, efforts like recapturing would help CP filers in a big way) as most of the efforts were targeted at AOS. I am not blaming but just requesting that CP filers are also included whenever IV core think about big picture.
All that we need is a safety net like EAD. Else, if several years of wait on GC were to go waste, it would be a disaster.
From what you said, looks like there are very few CP filers who visit this forum (and ofcourse, there is a reason why, hardly anything for them here), however, I would try to see if I could gain some mass here.
Thanks again!
One should not blame IV for not taking up a cause. IV is everyone. Core team is simply assisting the community in the general management of the organization. It is the community that powers all efforts.
We have had mostly AOS members till now and thus the focus has been on AOS. If you wanted CP in the tracker, let us know and we will add it.It is a minor issue. We haven't had anyone telling us till now or even telling us the bugs in the tracker so that we can improve it.
If you feel strongly that this is a genuine problem for CP filers, and everyone stuck in it can present compelling case for it, please feel free to lead the effort. IV will help you with guidance. Recently several members stuck in Perm audit delays approached IV and they took the initiative to start a campaign. I think this is how IV should evolve for future so that people can help themselves using this platform. IV is willing to help anyone stuck in the EB immigration system. Could you find more people like yourself stuck in CP filing in one place on this forum and discuss amongst yourself various ideas and strategies to find a solution to the problem. IV core will be available for guidance and advice.
Pappu,
Thanks for the response! I really appreciate that.
I said IV doesn't care for CP filers because there are no provision for CP filers in IV's agenda (ofcourse, efforts like recapturing would help CP filers in a big way) as most of the efforts were targeted at AOS. I am not blaming but just requesting that CP filers are also included whenever IV core think about big picture.
All that we need is a safety net like EAD. Else, if several years of wait on GC were to go waste, it would be a disaster.
From what you said, looks like there are very few CP filers who visit this forum (and ofcourse, there is a reason why, hardly anything for them here), however, I would try to see if I could gain some mass here.
Thanks again!
When Green?
07-30 09:05 AM
Dear Experts and Attorneys:
Here is my situation:
My employment was terminated by my Manager (no reasons given on paper, and the reasons he gave me were not valid when I discussed with my previous manager even per the company policy)
I am in the process of finalizing between a couple of offers (Hopefully would be able to make a decision by sometime next week). My previous manager is trying to get me into his project after I explained my I-485 application status. My PD is Aug-06 (EB-3), I-140 pending.
My spouse is on H-4. My initial plan before all this drama (Initial withdrawal of July visa bulletin and employment termination), I got all my documents signed and ready to be sent out from my attorney's office.
After this sequence of events, the attorney refuses to submit my I-485 application (because it could be considered Fraud).
Now I need your expert advice on the following situations:
1. Would it be ideal to join the same company in a different department and ask the lawyer to file my I-485? Use the AC21 portability after 180 days of pending application?
2. I read somewhere that for me to use the AC21 portability, I need to be in the same profile and also same pay range that was approved on my initial labor application. Is it true? I am currently being offered 15K more than what I have been making till now.
3. I have 3 more years of H-1B left, so what are the chances of getting a new green card process started under EB-2, and port the Aug-06 priority date after the I-140 is approved? How long would you anticipate it would take for me to get to the I-485 stage? Just a ball park from the experience on the forum would be great!
I have been out of the job for the past 2 weeks. would it be a problem for me while applying for a new labor certification?
I greatly appreciate your responses.
Thank you.
Here is my situation:
My employment was terminated by my Manager (no reasons given on paper, and the reasons he gave me were not valid when I discussed with my previous manager even per the company policy)
I am in the process of finalizing between a couple of offers (Hopefully would be able to make a decision by sometime next week). My previous manager is trying to get me into his project after I explained my I-485 application status. My PD is Aug-06 (EB-3), I-140 pending.
My spouse is on H-4. My initial plan before all this drama (Initial withdrawal of July visa bulletin and employment termination), I got all my documents signed and ready to be sent out from my attorney's office.
After this sequence of events, the attorney refuses to submit my I-485 application (because it could be considered Fraud).
Now I need your expert advice on the following situations:
1. Would it be ideal to join the same company in a different department and ask the lawyer to file my I-485? Use the AC21 portability after 180 days of pending application?
2. I read somewhere that for me to use the AC21 portability, I need to be in the same profile and also same pay range that was approved on my initial labor application. Is it true? I am currently being offered 15K more than what I have been making till now.
3. I have 3 more years of H-1B left, so what are the chances of getting a new green card process started under EB-2, and port the Aug-06 priority date after the I-140 is approved? How long would you anticipate it would take for me to get to the I-485 stage? Just a ball park from the experience on the forum would be great!
I have been out of the job for the past 2 weeks. would it be a problem for me while applying for a new labor certification?
I greatly appreciate your responses.
Thank you.