aamchimumbai
09-12 12:06 AM
Folks,
I applied for my 485 last week and the apps. were received at the NSC on Sep 5. Typically, how long does it take for the USCIS to send a receipt notice? Rather when can I expect to see that my application was accepted for processing....
It'll be a week tomorrow. Can anyone shed some light from their past experience.
Thanks all.
I applied for my 485 last week and the apps. were received at the NSC on Sep 5. Typically, how long does it take for the USCIS to send a receipt notice? Rather when can I expect to see that my application was accepted for processing....
It'll be a week tomorrow. Can anyone shed some light from their past experience.
Thanks all.
wallpaper Black Hairstyles 2010
kk_kk
05-19 11:50 AM
You just have to justify by saying, you have been in US on H1B visa and you came back after you have completed your project. Aftre that it is upto consulate.
HV000
02-17 09:59 PM
Its probably wise to lobby both Sen. Dick Durbin and Sen. John Cornyn together.
2011 Black Hairstyles Updos
DallasBlue
09-26 09:14 PM
Check out the local chapter messages on how to call in.
more...
skagitswimmer
June 6th, 2005, 08:00 AM
Thanks. I will go back and reshoot this and experiment a bit. The scene wasn't lit by harsh light - high cloud as I recall. I actually deepended the shadows intentionally in the PS CS2 RAW converter - the original wasn't as contrasty. What is interesting is that while the actual exposure of the blown area should be well within tolerances (If I were still shooting B&W film I would have guessed it at around zone 8) it is just the one colour that is blown - and yellow is not one of the 3 channels so it must have actualy been 2 colours. I will have to keep an eye on my histogram display because I don't have the $ for a 1DSMkII!
dixie
01-25 08:13 PM
Bush made his statement in the context of H1-B visas, not in terms of giving GCs. So it is not as if he made a pitch for us - there are plenty of folks making a pitch for H1 visas.It does not necessarily help our cause - H1 visas may very well be addressed without fixing the EB system, as it is more convenient politically and for the corporates.
When decision making people or people at the top talk, then i believe there is a sense of realization about us.
Atleast this should provide an easy opening of our case with top leaders.
I am not saying that is it, they are dispatching GCs through Fed-Ex?
If they did, i would be really surprised.
When decision making people or people at the top talk, then i believe there is a sense of realization about us.
Atleast this should provide an easy opening of our case with top leaders.
I am not saying that is it, they are dispatching GCs through Fed-Ex?
If they did, i would be really surprised.
more...
sina
04-16 08:47 AM
I am also planning on changing location from one state to another but the job is still with the same company (just moving to a different branch). My lawyer said it will not affect my GC but I have to get a new LCA for my H1. I still do not understand how this will not affect my GC (I have a approved 140 and waiting to file 485). Is there a way this is possible like if the labor is filed from the corporate office and has nothing do with branch locations?
I just want to make sure it is safe before I move.
Any help is appreciated.
I just want to make sure it is safe before I move.
Any help is appreciated.
2010 Prom Hairstyles 2010
nhfirefighter13
May 23rd, 2005, 04:37 AM
I love the color saturation on the first one. Very well done. My one complaint ( a small one) is that bright object in the grass a little above and to the right of the watermark. I don't know if it's a rock or a stump or what but I'd suggest cloning that out.
It'll distract those of us with "shiney-object syndrom" :D
It'll distract those of us with "shiney-object syndrom" :D
more...
tdasara
08-17 11:03 AM
ashkam
How many years do they renew the license based on I-485 receipt at Malvern DMV?
Thanks
How many years do they renew the license based on I-485 receipt at Malvern DMV?
Thanks
hair short hair styles 2010 for
shishya
09-27 01:12 AM
y not ask SEC or NASDAQ to file for your h1..... that should take care of things..... if u r making 10 trades in a day ..... during day time..... then u r actually not working in u'r real job..... y not have h1 for the job that u r really doing...... just trying to help by suggesting a way out.....
Helping by suggesting a way out? Wow, thanks! With all due respect, I'd request you to keep your opinion about who should file my H1B to yourself. I had a straightforward simple question, if you do not want to answer, so be it. And please mind your own business rather than judging if I am doing my job or not just coz I seem to be day trading. Think before you post crap. Thank you.
Helping by suggesting a way out? Wow, thanks! With all due respect, I'd request you to keep your opinion about who should file my H1B to yourself. I had a straightforward simple question, if you do not want to answer, so be it. And please mind your own business rather than judging if I am doing my job or not just coz I seem to be day trading. Think before you post crap. Thank you.
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
hot Bohemian hairstyles
gclocker
01-07 11:12 AM
Hi All,
I am a new user to this forum. I have been reading all the messages in this forum silently from the past couple of weeks. This is very interesting to see lot of efforts are going on to get the relief from the retrogression. I am also one of the victim for this. Here are my details.
Labor PD: 19 Nov 2003.
Labor Approved: 17 Nov 2005
140 filed: 5 Dec 2005.
AD???????
I am a new user to this forum. I have been reading all the messages in this forum silently from the past couple of weeks. This is very interesting to see lot of efforts are going on to get the relief from the retrogression. I am also one of the victim for this. Here are my details.
Labor PD: 19 Nov 2003.
Labor Approved: 17 Nov 2005
140 filed: 5 Dec 2005.
AD???????
more...
house Black Wedding Hairstyles Updo
brb2
04-19 08:45 AM
Politians will act when they think it is time to act. It is already known that the CIR is planned for second half of May in the senate. Why would they want to lay it out in detail and have those against conduct minute analysis and attack it. So they will only reveal the content closer to the debate.
It is clear Nancy Pelosi has told Bush, if you want it, deliver me the Republican votes and then I will schedule it. She is not going to spend her political capital on CIR. She knows Democrats will vote for it, but republicans will play both sides and she does not want it to happen. The senator who are elected for 6 years (as opposed for 2 years in the house) are less affected by short term public opinion and do what is right for the country. Even there Presidential hopefuls change their tune, like McCain. He was too left of the republican party and now he is moving too much to the right and will please no one, just like Romney.
It is clear Nancy Pelosi has told Bush, if you want it, deliver me the Republican votes and then I will schedule it. She is not going to spend her political capital on CIR. She knows Democrats will vote for it, but republicans will play both sides and she does not want it to happen. The senator who are elected for 6 years (as opposed for 2 years in the house) are less affected by short term public opinion and do what is right for the country. Even there Presidential hopefuls change their tune, like McCain. He was too left of the republican party and now he is moving too much to the right and will please no one, just like Romney.
tattoo celebrity short hair styles
vamsi_poondla
09-10 11:30 AM
Come Jan '08 (6 months after the July fiasco) and these companies will learn their lesson hard way. July filers will be able to exercise AC-21 rule to switch employers and most of these desi consulting companies who have no end clients and only supply cheap H1 consultants will have to fold up.
Is AC-21 absolutely safe? I think most concurrent filers have to wait at least an year until their I-140 gets through.
Is AC-21 absolutely safe? I think most concurrent filers have to wait at least an year until their I-140 gets through.
more...
pictures 2010 trendy bob hairstyle
.jpg "megan fox hairstyles 2010.")
roseball
10-07 06:30 PM
I would really love to hear comments from ppl who can relate to this possibly with some first-hand experience in going through this stage!
My labor cert was filed just this February (been about 8 months now). The application was put in as EB2 with the minimum requirements being - Masters + 3 yrs, or alternatively, a Bachelors + 5 yrs.
Now the law firm has contacted my manager asking her to prepare a "Business Necessity Statement" for a "POSSIBLE" audit! (note the word "possible", its not really an audit yet). They want my manager to explain why a Masters and 3 years is better than a Bachelors + 5 yrs for this job, and stuff like that.
Preparing a business necessity statement if there was really an audit is understandable, but this request from the law firm makes it look like they're more than certain that there will be an audit on my application. Have things gotten that bad really? Or is our law firm just pre-emptively preparing for the worst? Just to let you know, there are other ppl at my office with my similar job profile, whose labor cert has also been applied for as an EB3 (requiring only a Bachelors and work experience).
How scared should I be realistically about the possibility of an audit? And how realistic is it in this day and age to actually get an approved labor cert after responding to a business necessity audit.
Also, here's an excerpt from the email that the law firm sent to my manager. Can anyone of you suggest what kind of "additional documentation" they are talking about including with all the explanation for business necessity?
"All business necessity arguments must be evidenced via supporting documentation. Please note that the DOL prefers �independent� forms of documentation to statements from or information created by <companyname>. Make sure to be reasonably specific and identify the sources and bases for your assertions in the context of <companyname>'s business. Independent documentation that contains financial justification(s) to substantiate the business necessity argument will be particularly helpful."
The main issue with your PERM is to justify why your job required EB-2 qualifications as a requirement while others in your company with similar job profiles were only eligible under EB-3. That should be your main focus in preparing any documentation incase your case gets audited.
My labor cert was filed just this February (been about 8 months now). The application was put in as EB2 with the minimum requirements being - Masters + 3 yrs, or alternatively, a Bachelors + 5 yrs.
Now the law firm has contacted my manager asking her to prepare a "Business Necessity Statement" for a "POSSIBLE" audit! (note the word "possible", its not really an audit yet). They want my manager to explain why a Masters and 3 years is better than a Bachelors + 5 yrs for this job, and stuff like that.
Preparing a business necessity statement if there was really an audit is understandable, but this request from the law firm makes it look like they're more than certain that there will be an audit on my application. Have things gotten that bad really? Or is our law firm just pre-emptively preparing for the worst? Just to let you know, there are other ppl at my office with my similar job profile, whose labor cert has also been applied for as an EB3 (requiring only a Bachelors and work experience).
How scared should I be realistically about the possibility of an audit? And how realistic is it in this day and age to actually get an approved labor cert after responding to a business necessity audit.
Also, here's an excerpt from the email that the law firm sent to my manager. Can anyone of you suggest what kind of "additional documentation" they are talking about including with all the explanation for business necessity?
"All business necessity arguments must be evidenced via supporting documentation. Please note that the DOL prefers �independent� forms of documentation to statements from or information created by <companyname>. Make sure to be reasonably specific and identify the sources and bases for your assertions in the context of <companyname>'s business. Independent documentation that contains financial justification(s) to substantiate the business necessity argument will be particularly helpful."
The main issue with your PERM is to justify why your job required EB-2 qualifications as a requirement while others in your company with similar job profiles were only eligible under EB-3. That should be your main focus in preparing any documentation incase your case gets audited.
dresses Filed under: 2010, Black Braid
shikra1
11-10 03:33 PM
Remember, USCIS only tells us "total" I-485 receipts. They don't break it down to what many of us are interested to know, which is, how many are family based and how many are employment based. There is no way to know how many of the 150K receipts issued in Sept for I-485 were EB.
FB and EB combined annual limit is 366,000 immigrant visas (226K FB + 140K EB)
Again quoting from the monthly visa bulletin:
"Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320."
FB and EB combined annual limit is 366,000 immigrant visas (226K FB + 140K EB)
Again quoting from the monthly visa bulletin:
"Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320."
more...
makeup Black bride hairstyle. By
nsveta
04-22 01:16 PM
Hi, This is my first post here and I need some guidance regarding new-H1 under FY2010 quota.
--One of my friend told me about this company in Chicago who is doing H-1s and apparently the quota is not over yet. I am in India and
--Is it advisable to get my H01 filed at this time?
--What if the USCIS asks client letters? They said, the company will take care of it if that happens -- is that even legal to say that?
--What is the probably the CAP will be met by that time they file my H-1 in the next 2 weeks? And am not sure if the attorney returns the money in that case.
Please suggest. Thanks
--One of my friend told me about this company in Chicago who is doing H-1s and apparently the quota is not over yet. I am in India and
--Is it advisable to get my H01 filed at this time?
--What if the USCIS asks client letters? They said, the company will take care of it if that happens -- is that even legal to say that?
--What is the probably the CAP will be met by that time they file my H-1 in the next 2 weeks? And am not sure if the attorney returns the money in that case.
Please suggest. Thanks
girlfriend Hot Short African American
hpandey
06-07 11:27 AM
Thx a lot. I was so scared abt tht. I already have a job luckily my previous employer dind't cancel my H1 so used it and joined in a new firm
But these people started sendin' mails and callin' me so was jst scared will i have to loose tht money for nuthin' as well movin' from PHX to NY coseted me almost like $15000 more over tension in findin' a new job i was totally screwed for the past 2 months...
Thanks a lot again i will contact DOL @ the earliest
Why are you writing as if you are writing a text message ? Are you writing from a computer or your phone ? I have a doubt about your authenticity. When did you come to US. Is this your first employer ? If you are not new you should be knowing the answers to all these questions ..
But these people started sendin' mails and callin' me so was jst scared will i have to loose tht money for nuthin' as well movin' from PHX to NY coseted me almost like $15000 more over tension in findin' a new job i was totally screwed for the past 2 months...
Thanks a lot again i will contact DOL @ the earliest
Why are you writing as if you are writing a text message ? Are you writing from a computer or your phone ? I have a doubt about your authenticity. When did you come to US. Is this your first employer ? If you are not new you should be knowing the answers to all these questions ..
hairstyles short lack hairstyle
ivvm
04-01 02:08 AM
Your application will be processed for completion once your PD gets current!
hello
11-29 01:52 PM
Source The OH law firm
The Oh Law Firm (http://www.immigration-law.com/)
10/14/2010: USCIS Pre-Registration Requirement Rule-Making Agenda in Nonimmigrant and Immigrant Proceedings - How Soon?
The USCIS has been pushing proposals to change procedures of filing of nonimmigrant petitions as well as I-485 applications for sometime. The agency placed these proposals on its agenda this year and surely enough, it has initiated the first part of its agenda in its rule-making vault. The agency drafted and has been seeking the OMB approval for proposed regulation to require pre-registration of the H-1B petitions, apparently as part of its business transformation transition program. It appears that the proposed pre-registration requirement in the H-1B petition process may not bring a drastic impact on the H-1B petitioning employers and the alien beneficiaries. However, its agenda for requiring I-485 applicants to pre-register their intents to file I-485 applications regardless of the visa number availability in the Visa Bulletin will have a significant impact on the immigrants because the proposed rule would discontinue the concurrent filing process for employment-based adjustment of status applicants and would require that an alien seeking to immigrate based upon a classification that is subject to numerical limitations must be the beneficiary of an approved immigrant petition prior to proceeding through a revised adjustment of status process. In plain language, it means that it would terminate the current I-140 and I-485 concurrent filing procedure. The agency justification was to streamline the overall I-485 process and to mitigate visa retrogression through improved estimation of immigrant visa availability. This proposal is still in the vault of the USCIS rule-making agenda with the initial estimation of the proposed rule initiation action in October 2010. We have no information as to whether or not the agency will keep this schedule or will rather turn it over to FY 2011. Whether it initiates sooner or later, it will not have an immediate impact on the foreign workers seeking a green card as the rule-making process will drag into months to come in year 2011. But this is something one has to keep an eye on the development of the USCIS schedules of changes in application procedures. For the reasons, this site will closely monitor the agency's movement from here on. Please stay tuned to this web site for the development of this news.
Any news on this?Will they give EAD?
The Oh Law Firm (http://www.immigration-law.com/)
10/14/2010: USCIS Pre-Registration Requirement Rule-Making Agenda in Nonimmigrant and Immigrant Proceedings - How Soon?
The USCIS has been pushing proposals to change procedures of filing of nonimmigrant petitions as well as I-485 applications for sometime. The agency placed these proposals on its agenda this year and surely enough, it has initiated the first part of its agenda in its rule-making vault. The agency drafted and has been seeking the OMB approval for proposed regulation to require pre-registration of the H-1B petitions, apparently as part of its business transformation transition program. It appears that the proposed pre-registration requirement in the H-1B petition process may not bring a drastic impact on the H-1B petitioning employers and the alien beneficiaries. However, its agenda for requiring I-485 applicants to pre-register their intents to file I-485 applications regardless of the visa number availability in the Visa Bulletin will have a significant impact on the immigrants because the proposed rule would discontinue the concurrent filing process for employment-based adjustment of status applicants and would require that an alien seeking to immigrate based upon a classification that is subject to numerical limitations must be the beneficiary of an approved immigrant petition prior to proceeding through a revised adjustment of status process. In plain language, it means that it would terminate the current I-140 and I-485 concurrent filing procedure. The agency justification was to streamline the overall I-485 process and to mitigate visa retrogression through improved estimation of immigrant visa availability. This proposal is still in the vault of the USCIS rule-making agenda with the initial estimation of the proposed rule initiation action in October 2010. We have no information as to whether or not the agency will keep this schedule or will rather turn it over to FY 2011. Whether it initiates sooner or later, it will not have an immediate impact on the foreign workers seeking a green card as the rule-making process will drag into months to come in year 2011. But this is something one has to keep an eye on the development of the USCIS schedules of changes in application procedures. For the reasons, this site will closely monitor the agency's movement from here on. Please stay tuned to this web site for the development of this news.
Any news on this?Will they give EAD?
thepaew
09-24 03:44 PM
Okay - Good Luck! I hope that you get your GC and admit soon. Most probably, I am headed to a non-US program next year as I have waited too long for the elusive GC. :-)
Ciao
thanks for your advice. It is still OK if due to GC screwup, I cannot attend rather than my GC comes through next year, and I fret over why I did not apply. of couse, this is a personal choice. But, this is how I have decided to face the situation. I know of people who have applied 3 times and gone through. Also, deferrals for genuine reasons are allowed by schools, though not all.
Also, MBA process is less stressful than say, applying to MS from India. Being in USA for last few years, we now know better about what is what.
Ciao
thanks for your advice. It is still OK if due to GC screwup, I cannot attend rather than my GC comes through next year, and I fret over why I did not apply. of couse, this is a personal choice. But, this is how I have decided to face the situation. I know of people who have applied 3 times and gone through. Also, deferrals for genuine reasons are allowed by schools, though not all.
Also, MBA process is less stressful than say, applying to MS from India. Being in USA for last few years, we now know better about what is what.
