newtoh1
05-03 05:51 AM
No he doesn't have pending GC status.His wife is on 4th year of H1 and she already got EAD.But her priority date is not current (Sept 06)to add him to her GC status immediately.
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
goel_ar
05-18 08:54 PM
www.analystforum.com is the right place for it.
chanduv23
09-14 02:28 PM
IF YOU ARE A HARDLINER BY NATURE AND HAVE A HARD STANCE AGAINST IV's EFFORTS
PLEASE SOFTEN YOUR STANCE - FOLLOW YOUR HEART
YOUR HEART SAYS - YES - I WANT TO GO
FOLLOW YOUR HEART
PLEASE SOFTEN YOUR STANCE - FOLLOW YOUR HEART
YOUR HEART SAYS - YES - I WANT TO GO
FOLLOW YOUR HEART
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
Yas
03-24 10:42 PM
My employer was planning on sponsoring me, and paying all the filing fees, but the deal was that I was going to pay the lawyer directly for the legal fees. I just found out from a second lawyer that technically we can't do that because it will drop my salary below the prevailing wage. Is there anything I can do to get around this, and still pay the legal fees? Is it completely against the law for me to pay them or is that just an "interpretation of the law"? The other possibility is my husband could pay the fees, but I don't know if that's allowed either.
Let me know if you have any advice - we have to have everything signed by this Friday.
Let me know if you have any advice - we have to have everything signed by this Friday.
more...
mrane1
07-25 05:16 PM
My ND is july-12-2007
I am yet to receive by FP,
How will I come to know my FP appointment date, my attorney is not cooperating, please help.. :D
You will get it in the mail. Also keep a track of your application online...
I am yet to receive by FP,
How will I come to know my FP appointment date, my attorney is not cooperating, please help.. :D
You will get it in the mail. Also keep a track of your application online...
rbritt1268
November 15th, 2008, 11:46 PM
Irfanview with plugins should fit the bill. You can get it from download.com or Tucows (which is where download will probably send you anyway).
more...
stefanv
08-03 07:13 AM
Thankx mate :D
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
OLDMONK
06-15 11:03 AM
Find a new job and hope the employer did not revoke the underlying I140. I saw this discussed in detail a couple days ago, search the forums.
more...
gjoe
10-04 07:05 AM
I am worried that we would be made to wait for years if they don't have the PD on the application. Why is USCIS working in such an disorganized fashion?
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
suryamnb
12-19 11:31 PM
Hi friends,
Today I had a LUD on my old I-129 (approved in Aug 2005). The online status say: �On August 29, 2007, the post office returned our last written notice on this case as undeliverable. This can have serious effects on the processing of this case. Please call 1-800-375-5283 to update the mailing address so this notice can be re-sent.�
I'm no more working for this employer and I�ve changed to a new employer a year ago. What does this status mean?Any ideas?
Does this cause any problem to my current GC process which was sponsored by current employer?
Today I had a LUD on my old I-129 (approved in Aug 2005). The online status say: �On August 29, 2007, the post office returned our last written notice on this case as undeliverable. This can have serious effects on the processing of this case. Please call 1-800-375-5283 to update the mailing address so this notice can be re-sent.�
I'm no more working for this employer and I�ve changed to a new employer a year ago. What does this status mean?Any ideas?
Does this cause any problem to my current GC process which was sponsored by current employer?
more...
aqua
01-29 09:01 AM
Hello,
I am completing 4 yrs of my H1 and currenty working with company. I already have my PERM & 140 cleared through this company (EB3).
Hence, if I continue with this company, I do not have to worry about 6yrs limit on my H1.
However, if I have to change my employer:
1. Now?
2. After completion of 6 yrs (i.e. H1 extensions) would I be able to do that?
Also, what will happen with my GC? Will that be fresh start from scratch?
I am completing 4 yrs of my H1 and currenty working with company. I already have my PERM & 140 cleared through this company (EB3).
Hence, if I continue with this company, I do not have to worry about 6yrs limit on my H1.
However, if I have to change my employer:
1. Now?
2. After completion of 6 yrs (i.e. H1 extensions) would I be able to do that?
Also, what will happen with my GC? Will that be fresh start from scratch?
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
yawkabore
01-28 11:46 AM
Please I need advice. I am currently preparing to file I-140/I-485 concurrent application and do not want to include the names of my children who are US citizens on the application. This is because I do not want the name of their mom to come up since I don't want to add her name too to the application. Although we got married outside the US, and I mistakenly wrote that with her name on my B1/B2 application I still will want to file this application as single. She has some issues to clear with USCIS and I do not want to complicate matters by adding her name to my application. I truly will appreciate your advice on this matter before I submit my application. Thank you
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
JeffDG
03-30 11:41 AM
I initially voted in favour of this, but on further reflection, I think this is bad policy and urge others to not support this.
Giving I-485 benefits to people without current PDs is a bad idea. It creates a class of immigrants who are neither non-immigrant visa holders (h1b) nor are they lawful permanent residents (i-551) with a set of rights that falls into neither category. The AoS pending status is intended as a short-duration temporary "gap" coverage for people who are a matter of months from having actual I-551 rights.
Essentially, this proposal aims to make every month into the July 2007 fiasco. In addition, and this is the truly horrible part of it, relieves US employers of the pressure and costs they feel now, extending H1Bs every 3 years. That means that the only allies that legal EB immigrants have (US Employers who require their services) are detached from the immigrants themselves...they no longer have a dog in the hunt, and will stop whatever pressure they are bringing to bear now upon Congresscritters and Senators to increase the number of EB visas available.
Disconnecting the interests of foreign-national employees from their US employers will weaken the political position of the foreign-national employees. We cannot vote or contribute to campaigns, our employers however, can do both. If employees are shifted to EADs and APs, with no further involvement of employers in their immigration status needed, then those employers become disconnected from the process, and the one and only ally the legal immigrant has is no longer interested. That's a horrible thing for the immigrant to advocate.
I strongly urge IV to back away from this proposal, as it is not in the long-term interests of the EB Immigrant community. I urge IV to instead focus their resources on items that will help immigrants long term, like increasing the number of EB visas available through initiatives like eliminating the DV program and allocating the visas to EB applicants.
Giving I-485 benefits to people without current PDs is a bad idea. It creates a class of immigrants who are neither non-immigrant visa holders (h1b) nor are they lawful permanent residents (i-551) with a set of rights that falls into neither category. The AoS pending status is intended as a short-duration temporary "gap" coverage for people who are a matter of months from having actual I-551 rights.
Essentially, this proposal aims to make every month into the July 2007 fiasco. In addition, and this is the truly horrible part of it, relieves US employers of the pressure and costs they feel now, extending H1Bs every 3 years. That means that the only allies that legal EB immigrants have (US Employers who require their services) are detached from the immigrants themselves...they no longer have a dog in the hunt, and will stop whatever pressure they are bringing to bear now upon Congresscritters and Senators to increase the number of EB visas available.
Disconnecting the interests of foreign-national employees from their US employers will weaken the political position of the foreign-national employees. We cannot vote or contribute to campaigns, our employers however, can do both. If employees are shifted to EADs and APs, with no further involvement of employers in their immigration status needed, then those employers become disconnected from the process, and the one and only ally the legal immigrant has is no longer interested. That's a horrible thing for the immigrant to advocate.
I strongly urge IV to back away from this proposal, as it is not in the long-term interests of the EB Immigrant community. I urge IV to instead focus their resources on items that will help immigrants long term, like increasing the number of EB visas available through initiatives like eliminating the DV program and allocating the visas to EB applicants.
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
eager_immi
07-20 03:29 PM
please update your poll to have option done both or neither?
I thought we should have a poll of how many sent cards to senatorr/congressmen/directors etc
Also, how many uploaded the YouTube.
Please delete this thread if it exists already
I thought we should have a poll of how many sent cards to senatorr/congressmen/directors etc
Also, how many uploaded the YouTube.
Please delete this thread if it exists already
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
Pro Engineer
07-19 07:56 PM
hello all,
i m new to this forum. I know that when I-485 pending and EAD pending for 90 days, u can get temporary EAD from local USCIS office.
in similar way, can u also get temporary AP (advanced parole) if application pending for 90 days.
thanking you in advance.
i m new to this forum. I know that when I-485 pending and EAD pending for 90 days, u can get temporary EAD from local USCIS office.
in similar way, can u also get temporary AP (advanced parole) if application pending for 90 days.
thanking you in advance.
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
anyway
10-22 06:26 PM
Can anyone tell me how or where to create selection tiles for WP7?
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
Blog Feeds
02-15 09:30 PM
Immigration policies at today's USCIS may change in a flash. They can be announced and then, without forewarning or explanation, withdrawn in the milliseconds it takes for the agency's webmaster at www.uscis.gov to push the upload and delete buttons. At times they are as reliable and ephemeral as the inducements of a carnival barker. Take for example a January 19, 2010 policy memo, "Signatures on Applications and Petitions Filed with USCIS" (penned by USCIS Acting Deputy Director, Lauren Kielsmeier). The memo appeared evanescently and then, as Ron Ziegler, Richard Nixon's former press secretary in the Watergate era, might have said,...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/02/signature.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/02/signature.html)
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
Blog Feeds
06-25 01:30 PM
I'm actually writing this blog post on an airplane with Internet access. That's a first for me and those of you who know how much I love technology can probably envision the smile on my face. Back to the post, however. This is really remarkable. Fox News has championed the most hostile antis out there. So when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Fox owner Rupert Murdoch showed up on the popular Fox and Friends yesterday to explain why we need comprehensive immigration reform, that had to make major waves at the network. The appearance was noted in a major...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/rupert-murdoch-takes-proimmigration-case-to-his-own-fox-news.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/rupert-murdoch-takes-proimmigration-case-to-his-own-fox-news.html)
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
Macaca
05-19 07:04 AM
House GOP Uses Procedural Tactic To Frustrate Democratic Majority Motion to Recommit Employed to Delay or Alter Legislation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/18/AR2007051801697.html?hpid=topnews) By Lyndsey Layton (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/lyndsey+layton/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Saturday, May 19, 2007
House Republicans, fighting to remain relevant in a chamber ruled by Democrats, have increasingly seized on a parliamentary technique to alter or delay nearly a dozen pieces of legislation pushed by the majority this year.
And an election-year promise by Democrats to pay for any new programs they created has made it easier for Republicans to trip them up.
Tensions over the maneuvers reached a boil this week. Republicans used procedural tactics to stall floor debate for four hours Wednesday, and they are threatening to tie up future legislative action.
The stalling tactics prompted Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) to leave the floor and meet privately in his office with Republican Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and his whip, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). The men emerged with an uneasy detente that they said would last at least until Congress breaks for the Memorial Day recess, but the matter is far from settled.
Since January, GOP leaders have relied on a maneuver known as the "motion to recommit" to stymie Democrats and score political points for Republicans still adjusting to life in the minority.
The motion to recommit allows the minority a chance to amend a bill on the floor or send it back to committee, effectively killing it. In a legislative body in which the party in power controls nearly everything, it is one of the few tools the minority has to effect change.
In the 12 years of Republican control that ended in January, Democrats passed 11 motions to recommit. Republicans have racked up the same number in just five months of this Congress.
Democrats say any comparison is unfair because when Republicans controlled Congress, they directed their members to vote against all Democratic motions to recommit.
Now in the majority and mindful of staying there, Democrats have given no such instruction to their members, allowing them to break with the party if they choose. Many freshmen Democrats from GOP-leaning districts find themselves voting with Republicans as a matter of survival -- a reality Republicans have seized upon.
"Sometimes we offer motions to recommit to improve legislation -- sometimes it's to force Democrats in marginal districts to make tough choices," Boehner said. "Every time the Republicans win, it boosts morale. We're able to show unity, which is good for the overall team. Members feel good about winning on the House floor. And when you're in the minority, it doesn't happen that often."
Democrats dismiss the Republican maneuvers as largely symbolic and so arcane as to be irrelevant to the public.
"From a public policy standpoint, it's not very significant," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), regarded as an expert in parliamentary combat. "It's almost a Capture the Flag game. The number of people in America who say, 'Oh my gosh, the Republicans won another motion to recommit' is very small."
But Republicans argue they have been able to make significant changes. They point to Thursday, when they successfully used a motion to recommit to restore millions of dollars for missile defense to a defense bill. It remains to be seen if that money will survive a conference committee.
"It's kind of a 'Rashomon' world," said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, referring to the movie in which participants in an event all recount it differently. "The two parties see it in very different terms."
The Democrats' own rules have made it easier for Republicans to offer motions to recommit. In January, the party promised to observe "pay-go" -- finding a way to pay for any new spending rather than adding to the federal deficit. The unintended consequence is that tax proposals open legislation to modifications by the minority that would not otherwise be allowed.
Such was the case in March, when Democrats tried to pass a bill to give the District of Columbia a vote in the House. The bill included an additional seat for Utah and a minuscule tax increase to pay for two more House seats -- it called for expanding a provision of federal tax withholding law by .003 percent.
Republicans seized on the opening and moved to recommit the bill to committee, attaching new language that would have thrown out the District's strict anti-gun laws.
Worried that conservative, pro-gun Democrats would feel compelled to vote with GOP and kill the bill, Democratic leaders yanked it from the floor. They regrouped and split the bill into two tightly written measures, both of which passed and are pending in the Senate.
But the problem for Democrats was apparent. "We need to address that, or we're going to be, on every bill . . . [facing] an amendment totally unrelated to the substance of the bill," Hoyer said at the time.
This week, Democratic staffers privately discussed a rule change to limit the Republicans' ability to make motions to recommit. GOP leaders were incensed and threatened to use all available procedural techniques to block every bill except war spending legislation. But Democrats are hampered by their promise to run the chamber in a more open fashion than Republicans did when in the majority.
Hoyer agreed to hold off on further rule changes until Memorial Day and consult Boehner and Blunt on possible changes.
"The bottom line is, the war goes on," Mann said. "The majority uses the rules to structure debates and limit amendments on matters where Republicans have a chance to either break up the Democrats' winning coalition or embarrass them."
House Republicans, fighting to remain relevant in a chamber ruled by Democrats, have increasingly seized on a parliamentary technique to alter or delay nearly a dozen pieces of legislation pushed by the majority this year.
And an election-year promise by Democrats to pay for any new programs they created has made it easier for Republicans to trip them up.
Tensions over the maneuvers reached a boil this week. Republicans used procedural tactics to stall floor debate for four hours Wednesday, and they are threatening to tie up future legislative action.
The stalling tactics prompted Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) to leave the floor and meet privately in his office with Republican Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and his whip, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). The men emerged with an uneasy detente that they said would last at least until Congress breaks for the Memorial Day recess, but the matter is far from settled.
Since January, GOP leaders have relied on a maneuver known as the "motion to recommit" to stymie Democrats and score political points for Republicans still adjusting to life in the minority.
The motion to recommit allows the minority a chance to amend a bill on the floor or send it back to committee, effectively killing it. In a legislative body in which the party in power controls nearly everything, it is one of the few tools the minority has to effect change.
In the 12 years of Republican control that ended in January, Democrats passed 11 motions to recommit. Republicans have racked up the same number in just five months of this Congress.
Democrats say any comparison is unfair because when Republicans controlled Congress, they directed their members to vote against all Democratic motions to recommit.
Now in the majority and mindful of staying there, Democrats have given no such instruction to their members, allowing them to break with the party if they choose. Many freshmen Democrats from GOP-leaning districts find themselves voting with Republicans as a matter of survival -- a reality Republicans have seized upon.
"Sometimes we offer motions to recommit to improve legislation -- sometimes it's to force Democrats in marginal districts to make tough choices," Boehner said. "Every time the Republicans win, it boosts morale. We're able to show unity, which is good for the overall team. Members feel good about winning on the House floor. And when you're in the minority, it doesn't happen that often."
Democrats dismiss the Republican maneuvers as largely symbolic and so arcane as to be irrelevant to the public.
"From a public policy standpoint, it's not very significant," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), regarded as an expert in parliamentary combat. "It's almost a Capture the Flag game. The number of people in America who say, 'Oh my gosh, the Republicans won another motion to recommit' is very small."
But Republicans argue they have been able to make significant changes. They point to Thursday, when they successfully used a motion to recommit to restore millions of dollars for missile defense to a defense bill. It remains to be seen if that money will survive a conference committee.
"It's kind of a 'Rashomon' world," said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, referring to the movie in which participants in an event all recount it differently. "The two parties see it in very different terms."
The Democrats' own rules have made it easier for Republicans to offer motions to recommit. In January, the party promised to observe "pay-go" -- finding a way to pay for any new spending rather than adding to the federal deficit. The unintended consequence is that tax proposals open legislation to modifications by the minority that would not otherwise be allowed.
Such was the case in March, when Democrats tried to pass a bill to give the District of Columbia a vote in the House. The bill included an additional seat for Utah and a minuscule tax increase to pay for two more House seats -- it called for expanding a provision of federal tax withholding law by .003 percent.
Republicans seized on the opening and moved to recommit the bill to committee, attaching new language that would have thrown out the District's strict anti-gun laws.
Worried that conservative, pro-gun Democrats would feel compelled to vote with GOP and kill the bill, Democratic leaders yanked it from the floor. They regrouped and split the bill into two tightly written measures, both of which passed and are pending in the Senate.
But the problem for Democrats was apparent. "We need to address that, or we're going to be, on every bill . . . [facing] an amendment totally unrelated to the substance of the bill," Hoyer said at the time.
This week, Democratic staffers privately discussed a rule change to limit the Republicans' ability to make motions to recommit. GOP leaders were incensed and threatened to use all available procedural techniques to block every bill except war spending legislation. But Democrats are hampered by their promise to run the chamber in a more open fashion than Republicans did when in the majority.
Hoyer agreed to hold off on further rule changes until Memorial Day and consult Boehner and Blunt on possible changes.
"The bottom line is, the war goes on," Mann said. "The majority uses the rules to structure debates and limit amendments on matters where Republicans have a chance to either break up the Democrats' winning coalition or embarrass them."
amoljak
03-24 09:28 AM
This report is about low skilled workers. IV (I think) is about addressing the EB immigration, which is mostly about highly skilled workers. So I don't see how this applies here...
Mahatma
05-03 09:41 AM
Gurus,
here is my situation.
FP done in Nov 2007. Planning a trip to India in Dec 2008 to Jan 2009. What if I receive biometrics during this time? After 1 year of FP, I anticipate that there would be repeat Biometrics done.
Is there a way for us to request Biometrics early? I am going to renew EAD and AP 4 months before expiry (expire in Nov 2008). Will this take care of Biometrics renewal as well?
Thanks for your valuable inputs.
I am Eb1,
PD June 29,2007
TSC
RD Oct 18, 2007
ideally I expected GC to be done before my trip BUT strange are the ways of USCIS.....
here is my situation.
FP done in Nov 2007. Planning a trip to India in Dec 2008 to Jan 2009. What if I receive biometrics during this time? After 1 year of FP, I anticipate that there would be repeat Biometrics done.
Is there a way for us to request Biometrics early? I am going to renew EAD and AP 4 months before expiry (expire in Nov 2008). Will this take care of Biometrics renewal as well?
Thanks for your valuable inputs.
I am Eb1,
PD June 29,2007
TSC
RD Oct 18, 2007
ideally I expected GC to be done before my trip BUT strange are the ways of USCIS.....
No comments:
Post a Comment