patiently_waiting
01-15 03:24 PM
Questions & Answers: USCIS Issues Guidance Memorandum on Establishing the "Employee-Employer Relationship" in H-1B Petitions (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=3d015869c9326210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
wallpaper Just because a tumor is fast
sdckkbc
03-23 06:24 PM
I have I-140 approved from my old employer. My new employer is starting my PERM. We plan to port my old priority date. My question is at what stage of GC process from new emplyer can the old priority date be proted - PERM, I-140 or I485?
devs
06-26 05:29 AM
hi,
My h1 is approved in this years quota but i have not received I797. During this period if my h4 is stamped will my h1 be cancelled. or can i go to US on
h4 and then change my status to h1 ?
My h1 is approved in this years quota but i have not received I797. During this period if my h4 is stamped will my h1 be cancelled. or can i go to US on
h4 and then change my status to h1 ?
2011 easy prom hair styles
wandmaker
02-20 12:17 PM
Guys,
My company is forcing everyone to fill I9 form. I have EAD but maintaining H1 status and did not use EAD. I did some research on I9 and it is no where mentioned that only people with EAD has to fill this. I need Guru's opinion on this.
I just don't want to loose my H1 status in any case.
I-9 should be filled by every employee, irrespective of your visa status; Go through the list A, B and C documents, it is self explanatory. This is the proof that you reported to work.
My company is forcing everyone to fill I9 form. I have EAD but maintaining H1 status and did not use EAD. I did some research on I9 and it is no where mentioned that only people with EAD has to fill this. I need Guru's opinion on this.
I just don't want to loose my H1 status in any case.
I-9 should be filled by every employee, irrespective of your visa status; Go through the list A, B and C documents, it is self explanatory. This is the proof that you reported to work.
more...
chinta_ramesh
08-14 01:19 AM
I was wondering ..like are there any I-485 applications with labor substitution got approved in this Aug ???
All the people I saw till are had their OWN labors so ...!!!
Any info will be useful I guess.
All the people I saw till are had their OWN labors so ...!!!
Any info will be useful I guess.
Macaca
07-22 05:39 PM
Empty Promises (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_8/editorial/19419-1.html), July 18, 2007
As Senate Democrats were preparing to go to the mattresses over Iraq voting procedures and as Republicans threatened to stop all activity over a judicial appointment, it's worth recalling what Senate leaders were promising at the outset of the 110th Congress.
On Jan. 4, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declared on the floor that "last November, the voters sent us a message - Democrats and Republicans. The voters are upset with Congress and the partisan gridlock. The voters want a government that focuses on their needs. The voters want change. Together, we must deliver that change."
Minutes later, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) observed that "the challenges ahead will not be met if we do nothing to overcome the partisanship that has come to characterize this body over the past several years. A culture of partisanship over principle represents a grave threat to the Senate's best tradition as a place of constructive cooperation. It undermines the spirit and the purpose of this institution. And we must do something to reverse its course."
Six months on, the Senate has devolved into a nonstop brawl. The House, where leaders made let's-work-together promises of their own, also is a cauldron of partisanship, but at least there the rules permit a majority to rule.
But together, they've been able to pass just three pieces of significant legislation - a hike in the minimum wage, expansion of stem-cell research funding and a supplemental appropriation to fund the Iraq War. Only the first was directly signed into law. The second was vetoed by President Bush. The third was vetoed then passed.
Partisan warfare and inaction on issues from health care to immigration to energy - even lobbying and ethics reform, once the top priority for this Congress - has reduced respect for the legislative branch to its lowest level ever. Respect for the presidency is not much higher.
Who's to blame? Senate Democrats accuse Senate Republicans of "obstructionism" - systematic refusal to grant unanimous consent so that bills can be voted upon. Senate Republicans blame Reid for invoking cloture to stifle full debate and the offering of amendments.
The level of rancor is escalating now because Democrats are frustrated that Republicans are insisting on a 60-vote threshold on Iraq War amendments - as though Democrats in the past have not used the 60-vote requirement when it suited them. Republicans are threatening to create procedural chaos and allow little or no action on the floor if Democrats block a single appellate court nominee.
In January, Senators of both parties gathered in the Old Senate Chamber in what McConnell described as "a small act of bipartisanship" that he hoped would lead to a restoration of the Senate's reputation. Now, perhaps, Senators should regather there and contemplate their current level of public esteem.
As Senate Democrats were preparing to go to the mattresses over Iraq voting procedures and as Republicans threatened to stop all activity over a judicial appointment, it's worth recalling what Senate leaders were promising at the outset of the 110th Congress.
On Jan. 4, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declared on the floor that "last November, the voters sent us a message - Democrats and Republicans. The voters are upset with Congress and the partisan gridlock. The voters want a government that focuses on their needs. The voters want change. Together, we must deliver that change."
Minutes later, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) observed that "the challenges ahead will not be met if we do nothing to overcome the partisanship that has come to characterize this body over the past several years. A culture of partisanship over principle represents a grave threat to the Senate's best tradition as a place of constructive cooperation. It undermines the spirit and the purpose of this institution. And we must do something to reverse its course."
Six months on, the Senate has devolved into a nonstop brawl. The House, where leaders made let's-work-together promises of their own, also is a cauldron of partisanship, but at least there the rules permit a majority to rule.
But together, they've been able to pass just three pieces of significant legislation - a hike in the minimum wage, expansion of stem-cell research funding and a supplemental appropriation to fund the Iraq War. Only the first was directly signed into law. The second was vetoed by President Bush. The third was vetoed then passed.
Partisan warfare and inaction on issues from health care to immigration to energy - even lobbying and ethics reform, once the top priority for this Congress - has reduced respect for the legislative branch to its lowest level ever. Respect for the presidency is not much higher.
Who's to blame? Senate Democrats accuse Senate Republicans of "obstructionism" - systematic refusal to grant unanimous consent so that bills can be voted upon. Senate Republicans blame Reid for invoking cloture to stifle full debate and the offering of amendments.
The level of rancor is escalating now because Democrats are frustrated that Republicans are insisting on a 60-vote threshold on Iraq War amendments - as though Democrats in the past have not used the 60-vote requirement when it suited them. Republicans are threatening to create procedural chaos and allow little or no action on the floor if Democrats block a single appellate court nominee.
In January, Senators of both parties gathered in the Old Senate Chamber in what McConnell described as "a small act of bipartisanship" that he hoped would lead to a restoration of the Senate's reputation. Now, perhaps, Senators should regather there and contemplate their current level of public esteem.
more...
ravish02
04-12 03:40 PM
Hello,
I am on H1B , This is my 5 th year in US on H1B . My Initial Visa Stamping got expired . I changed from company A ( visa stamped ) to Company B, Currently I am H1B Extension ( I797 ) with out Visa . My wife and kids are with me on H4 (same as my case , old Visa expired now on extension of H4). They want to travel to India this summer . They need a Re entry Visa .
My Questions
Since I am(primary applicant) not going, Can they ( H4)go for stamping with my I797 extension papers with primary applicants (H1) Expired Visa ?
Appreciate your suggestions .
Ravi.
I am on H1B , This is my 5 th year in US on H1B . My Initial Visa Stamping got expired . I changed from company A ( visa stamped ) to Company B, Currently I am H1B Extension ( I797 ) with out Visa . My wife and kids are with me on H4 (same as my case , old Visa expired now on extension of H4). They want to travel to India this summer . They need a Re entry Visa .
My Questions
Since I am(primary applicant) not going, Can they ( H4)go for stamping with my I797 extension papers with primary applicants (H1) Expired Visa ?
Appreciate your suggestions .
Ravi.
2010 loose teeth dropping out.
ariedia
07-24 10:54 AM
I am an EB3 (rest of the world) -
My I485 has a receipt date of 7/24/2007.
The processing date TSC is showing is 7/16/2007.
When my date comes up inside the Processing dates range, will the category be relevant for the approval? I am asking this question because I have a friend that is an EB2 and a receipt date of Sept 2007, and got his GC on December 2007...
If the categories are relevant, how can we monitor the process (the processing dates then become irrelevant)...
My I485 has a receipt date of 7/24/2007.
The processing date TSC is showing is 7/16/2007.
When my date comes up inside the Processing dates range, will the category be relevant for the approval? I am asking this question because I have a friend that is an EB2 and a receipt date of Sept 2007, and got his GC on December 2007...
If the categories are relevant, how can we monitor the process (the processing dates then become irrelevant)...
more...
Blog Feeds
06-27 06:50 PM
On June 25, President Obama met with a bipartisan group of 30 key legislators beginning a dialogue that he hopes will lead to comprehensive immigration reform in 2009 or early in 2010. Among the topics discussed were border security, family reunification and reform of the outdated quota system. Following the meeting, the President stated, �but what I�m encouraged by is that after all the overheated rhetoric and the occasional demagoguery on all sides around this issue, we�ve got a responsible set of leaders sitting around the table who want to actively get something done and not put it off until...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/06/president-obama-and-immigration-reform.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/06/president-obama-and-immigration-reform.html)
hair pm friday Teeth and ithe
ameerka_dream
03-30 09:40 AM
^^^^^^^^^^bump^^^^^^^^^^
more...
Blog Feeds
01-20 07:00 AM
A reader sent me a link to a post at the The Future of Capitalism blog reminding folks that being pro-immigration fits right in to a conservative agenda: David Cameron, the British "Conservative" Party leader who favors a top income tax rate of 50%, also wants immigration restrictions that would limit Great Britain's population over the next 20 years to 70 million. The Financial Times has an editorial with some reasons this is a bad idea. Here in America, the restrictionist Federation for American Immigration Reform is a bronze sponsor of next month's National Tea Party Convention. Here at FutureOfCapitalism.com,...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/if-you-like-big-government-youll-fit-right-in-with-the-antis.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/if-you-like-big-government-youll-fit-right-in-with-the-antis.html)
hot fibroids hair teeth uteris
sac-r-ten
02-21 06:27 PM
You can file for FOIA to get it from USCIS if attorney is not cooperative. When was the labor filed? How much time it took to get approved.Just to get an idea on the timelines USCIS working on labor these days
thank you.
thank you.
more...
house of the tumor or of all of
silent_k
05-20 12:38 PM
Has anyone been in this situation? Any help is much appreciated.
Thanks in advance
Thanks in advance
tattoo fibroids hair teeth uteris
addsf345
06-15 08:00 PM
Will it be ok to change employers multiple times on EAD with in shrt span of time difference?
yes, after being a 'chicken' for so long, I changed job on AC21 six months back. And since then changed twice after that. (once forced due to economy, second time moved to a better position) in fact now I am loving the freedom that comes with EAD. Only make sure you stick to same profession (programming) other things like salary or job title etc doesn't matter. Good Luck!
yes, after being a 'chicken' for so long, I changed job on AC21 six months back. And since then changed twice after that. (once forced due to economy, second time moved to a better position) in fact now I am loving the freedom that comes with EAD. Only make sure you stick to same profession (programming) other things like salary or job title etc doesn't matter. Good Luck!
more...
pictures Rheumatism, Hair Loss, Dry
ineedhelp1986
03-28 01:24 PM
Hi All,
I applied I765 in Jan 2011...but its in initial review state now(Nebraska).
Because of some urgent reason i have to leave US in April ...& no such fiexed plan to come back in US near future.
So m planning to withdraw i765 application...So anybody knows answer to my questions,
1.what is the procedure to withdraw?
2.Whats a address for Mail OR Email OR Phone Number?
3.What information do i need to submit?
4.How much time it will take to withdraw?
Thanks :)
I applied I765 in Jan 2011...but its in initial review state now(Nebraska).
Because of some urgent reason i have to leave US in April ...& no such fiexed plan to come back in US near future.
So m planning to withdraw i765 application...So anybody knows answer to my questions,
1.what is the procedure to withdraw?
2.Whats a address for Mail OR Email OR Phone Number?
3.What information do i need to submit?
4.How much time it will take to withdraw?
Thanks :)
dresses S/P Wisdom Teeth Removal,
gc_check
07-02 09:52 AM
Folks, Also share the PD if y'all don't mind
more...
makeup Pagani Hair Salon in Riverside
krishmunn
06-22 01:35 PM
You can renew your passport upto 1 year before expiry date.
girlfriend “He had hair as black as
k3GC
07-02 12:16 PM
How come a govt. organization that is never known to do things on time, all of sudden is able to approve 60000 GCs in such a short period ? Why did they have to do it by end of June ? If they had done that by end of July would anything have been different for the folks who were getting the Green Cards - NO.
I think this was all planned. There was a reason why the numbers were made current and there is a reason why the numbers became unavailable.
I think we should get to the bottom of this. This stinks ......
I think this was all planned. There was a reason why the numbers were made current and there is a reason why the numbers became unavailable.
I think we should get to the bottom of this. This stinks ......
hairstyles This latest method of hair
maheshf
10-13 02:37 PM
I am in an interesting situation, my 485 is pending (PD June 22, 2006) and wondering if I should accept a position offered by my original GC employer, special when my PD is so close ( May take another 6-8 month).
I was part of company lets say X, a join venture between A&B. X applied for my GC 140 and 485 when I was with them. Then that company was split and 10% employee went to A and other 90% to B. I was part of 10% that went to A and did AC21 to port my case. It was considered as new company. Now my Old manager who moved to company B is offering a Job with significant promotion. Since X was technical acquired by B and X was my original employer, is it a win win situation to move or I stay put and wait for PD to become current before moving? job profile is goign to be same.
I was part of company lets say X, a join venture between A&B. X applied for my GC 140 and 485 when I was with them. Then that company was split and 10% employee went to A and other 90% to B. I was part of 10% that went to A and did AC21 to port my case. It was considered as new company. Now my Old manager who moved to company B is offering a Job with significant promotion. Since X was technical acquired by B and X was my original employer, is it a win win situation to move or I stay put and wait for PD to become current before moving? job profile is goign to be same.
Macaca
10-22 08:07 AM
Can Washington Be Fixed? (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2007/10/19/can-washington-be-fixed.html) The war. Healthcare. Airline delays. Katrina. Americans are fed up with inaction�and demanding change By Kenneth T. Walsh, October 19, 2007
There they go again.
The White House and Congress are in a nasty stalemate over expanding access to children's healthcare. President Bush predicts a "fiscal showdown" this fall with Democratic legislators over virtually all his spending priorities. "We're now more than halfway through October, and the new leaders in Congress have had more than nine months to get things done for the American people," Bush told a news conference last week. "Unfortunately, they haven't managed to pass many important bills. Now the clock is winding down, and in some key areas, Congress is just getting started." In a familiar tit for tat, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shot back: "There is no better example of why Washington is not working for the American people than the president claiming to seek common ground at the same time he is bitterly attacking Congress."
Beyond that, no solution has emerged for the subprime mortgage meltdown that may cost hundreds of thousands of Americans their homes and endangers the wider economy. The Iraq war grinds on, with no apparent end in sight. Idaho Sen. Larry Craig is reviving the sleaze-factor saga that has been so damaging to Washington by trying to withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct stemming from a restroom sex sting.
It's the constant refrain from the presidential candidates, political scientists, and, most important of all, everyday Americans: Washington is broken. Rancorous partisanship has nearly paralyzed the government. The nation's leaders have lost touch with the people. Above all, it's time for a change. Historians and pollsters say the zeitgeist is clear. Americans are more frustrated with their government today than they have been in a long time, even more so than during the Watergate scandal. And those negative feelings have become the subtext of the 2008 presidential race. "Distrust of politicians and politics are part of American culture," says Princeton historian Julian Zelizer. "But the distrust is getting worse."
With good reason. The government can't seem to solve any of its major problems, from reforming Social Security to illegal immigration. "Anytime there is a major policy failure," such as the disastrous government response to Hurricane Katrina, Zelizer says, "it decreases Americans' belief that government can do good." The Democrats and Republicans are increasingly relying on their base voters and aren't reaching out to anyone else, making compromise nearly impossible. Corruption scandals have increased public cynicism. The 24-hour news cycle emphasizes conflict and wrongdoing more than ever. The Iraq war has deepened the nation's anxiety. President Bush and Congress endure record-low approval ratings. In fact, 7 out of 10 Americans now say the country is headed in the wrong direction. "People feel nothing gets done in Washington, that the hot air of summer has become a permanent condition," says Kenneth Duberstein, former White House chief of staff for Ronald Reagan.
The need for change is such a dominant theme that all the main presidential contenders are calling for an end to business as usual. The Democrats, trying to draw contrasts with the GOP White House of George W. Bush, are the most pointed. Front-runner Hillary Clinton says her experience as first lady and as a senator from New York enables her to bring more positive and effective change than her rivals. "She has represented change all her life," says Mark Penn, her chief strategist , "and she's been fighting the special interests all her life." Illinois Sen. Barack Obama goes further. "There are those who tout their experience working the system in Washington," Obama says. "But the problem is the system in Washington isn't working for us, and it hasn't been for a very long time." And John Edwards told U.S. News: "Washington is severely broken. And I think the system is rigged, and I think it's rigged against the American people and it's rigged by powerful interests and their lobbyists in Washington."
The Republicans are more restrained in attacking Bush, the titular head of their party, but they realize that public resentment of the status quo runs deep. "When, every day, Americans are being shot and Iraqis are being blown up, it feels lousy," says former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. "I happen to think that the failures in Iraq have a great deal to do with the wrong-track sentiment that exists in the country today."
Can't say no. Beyond Iraq, other reasons for public frustration with Washington include anxiety about job security, wage stagnation, retirement, and access to affordable healthcare�all situations that the White House and Congress have failed to improve. "Because the two parties are so evenly balanced, it's not possible for one party to pass its own agenda," says conservative strategist Grover Norquist. "When you've got a fifty-fifty balance, each team needs all its most motivated players and each team can't say no to its radical special interests."
There they go again.
The White House and Congress are in a nasty stalemate over expanding access to children's healthcare. President Bush predicts a "fiscal showdown" this fall with Democratic legislators over virtually all his spending priorities. "We're now more than halfway through October, and the new leaders in Congress have had more than nine months to get things done for the American people," Bush told a news conference last week. "Unfortunately, they haven't managed to pass many important bills. Now the clock is winding down, and in some key areas, Congress is just getting started." In a familiar tit for tat, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shot back: "There is no better example of why Washington is not working for the American people than the president claiming to seek common ground at the same time he is bitterly attacking Congress."
Beyond that, no solution has emerged for the subprime mortgage meltdown that may cost hundreds of thousands of Americans their homes and endangers the wider economy. The Iraq war grinds on, with no apparent end in sight. Idaho Sen. Larry Craig is reviving the sleaze-factor saga that has been so damaging to Washington by trying to withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct stemming from a restroom sex sting.
It's the constant refrain from the presidential candidates, political scientists, and, most important of all, everyday Americans: Washington is broken. Rancorous partisanship has nearly paralyzed the government. The nation's leaders have lost touch with the people. Above all, it's time for a change. Historians and pollsters say the zeitgeist is clear. Americans are more frustrated with their government today than they have been in a long time, even more so than during the Watergate scandal. And those negative feelings have become the subtext of the 2008 presidential race. "Distrust of politicians and politics are part of American culture," says Princeton historian Julian Zelizer. "But the distrust is getting worse."
With good reason. The government can't seem to solve any of its major problems, from reforming Social Security to illegal immigration. "Anytime there is a major policy failure," such as the disastrous government response to Hurricane Katrina, Zelizer says, "it decreases Americans' belief that government can do good." The Democrats and Republicans are increasingly relying on their base voters and aren't reaching out to anyone else, making compromise nearly impossible. Corruption scandals have increased public cynicism. The 24-hour news cycle emphasizes conflict and wrongdoing more than ever. The Iraq war has deepened the nation's anxiety. President Bush and Congress endure record-low approval ratings. In fact, 7 out of 10 Americans now say the country is headed in the wrong direction. "People feel nothing gets done in Washington, that the hot air of summer has become a permanent condition," says Kenneth Duberstein, former White House chief of staff for Ronald Reagan.
The need for change is such a dominant theme that all the main presidential contenders are calling for an end to business as usual. The Democrats, trying to draw contrasts with the GOP White House of George W. Bush, are the most pointed. Front-runner Hillary Clinton says her experience as first lady and as a senator from New York enables her to bring more positive and effective change than her rivals. "She has represented change all her life," says Mark Penn, her chief strategist , "and she's been fighting the special interests all her life." Illinois Sen. Barack Obama goes further. "There are those who tout their experience working the system in Washington," Obama says. "But the problem is the system in Washington isn't working for us, and it hasn't been for a very long time." And John Edwards told U.S. News: "Washington is severely broken. And I think the system is rigged, and I think it's rigged against the American people and it's rigged by powerful interests and their lobbyists in Washington."
The Republicans are more restrained in attacking Bush, the titular head of their party, but they realize that public resentment of the status quo runs deep. "When, every day, Americans are being shot and Iraqis are being blown up, it feels lousy," says former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. "I happen to think that the failures in Iraq have a great deal to do with the wrong-track sentiment that exists in the country today."
Can't say no. Beyond Iraq, other reasons for public frustration with Washington include anxiety about job security, wage stagnation, retirement, and access to affordable healthcare�all situations that the White House and Congress have failed to improve. "Because the two parties are so evenly balanced, it's not possible for one party to pass its own agenda," says conservative strategist Grover Norquist. "When you've got a fifty-fifty balance, each team needs all its most motivated players and each team can't say no to its radical special interests."
mikec
05-15 08:33 PM
hello, i really need some one to clarify this information for me.
when i first started working with my company i did not have work authorization and basically said i am a US citizen, i never had any problems for 4 years, i am a permanent residence now and got my green card this year. the company now nows that i lied 4 years ago when i got hired and i was not allowed to work but am fully eligible to work now becaue of change in status to PR. can the company resubmit a new i9 form with the correct information and if i will be in any trouble with USCIS.
What is the law for someone who worked illegaly but got his or her status changed to PR.
THANK YOU
when i first started working with my company i did not have work authorization and basically said i am a US citizen, i never had any problems for 4 years, i am a permanent residence now and got my green card this year. the company now nows that i lied 4 years ago when i got hired and i was not allowed to work but am fully eligible to work now becaue of change in status to PR. can the company resubmit a new i9 form with the correct information and if i will be in any trouble with USCIS.
What is the law for someone who worked illegaly but got his or her status changed to PR.
THANK YOU
No comments:
Post a Comment