ch8509
02-07 07:30 PM
a) H1 extension(I797) approved but no I94
b) Visa stamp and I-94 expired when I applied ( my mistake)for extension but I-797 was valid. Have EAD and Advance Paroll
c) Wife is on H4 and I cannot add her to greencard process because priority date is not current.
d) I need to maintain H1 for my wife.
e) She returned to India before her H4 expired.
f) I work at a client location via a middle vendor so recently found out it does not conform to H1 employer-employee relationship.
1) Is there any time restriction on when I should get Visa stamping done?
2) Client agreed to give client letter but I am worried that I will be rejected at H1 visa stamping because of employer employee relationship requirement.
3) Is it a better startegy to not go to India, send my wife for H4 stamping and bring her to US or is it safer for me to go for H1 visa stamping?
4) Should I change jobs to a client who will transfer H1 and continue my greencard (possibly apply for EB2) before going to India for H1 stamping?
5) Please suggest best course of action.
Thank you
b) Visa stamp and I-94 expired when I applied ( my mistake)for extension but I-797 was valid. Have EAD and Advance Paroll
c) Wife is on H4 and I cannot add her to greencard process because priority date is not current.
d) I need to maintain H1 for my wife.
e) She returned to India before her H4 expired.
f) I work at a client location via a middle vendor so recently found out it does not conform to H1 employer-employee relationship.
1) Is there any time restriction on when I should get Visa stamping done?
2) Client agreed to give client letter but I am worried that I will be rejected at H1 visa stamping because of employer employee relationship requirement.
3) Is it a better startegy to not go to India, send my wife for H4 stamping and bring her to US or is it safer for me to go for H1 visa stamping?
4) Should I change jobs to a client who will transfer H1 and continue my greencard (possibly apply for EB2) before going to India for H1 stamping?
5) Please suggest best course of action.
Thank you
wallpaper Screenshots live Cricket Score
alok97
03-03 09:38 PM
Hi, Last year, I heard about a new rule that says that H4 time will not be counted against H1 time so basically, if someone is transferring from H4 to H1, the time spent in H4 will be excluded while deciding the duration of H1.
Is this rule true ? I mean, has it become a law now ? Did somebody use this rule to grab the time spent in H4.
Please let me know.
Is this rule true ? I mean, has it become a law now ? Did somebody use this rule to grab the time spent in H4.
Please let me know.
reddymjm
05-21 09:51 AM
1.Should I apply with his ID or I can create my seperate ID and apply through that.
Create your own.
2.For c9 Eligibility status which option should I select?.
Pedning i485 or AOS
a.family based.
b.Employment based .
If your husband filed in EB it Employment based.
.
Create your own.
2.For c9 Eligibility status which option should I select?.
Pedning i485 or AOS
a.family based.
b.Employment based .
If your husband filed in EB it Employment based.
.
2011 Cricket Live score and
willgetgc2005
04-13 06:33 PM
Hi,
Here is the BEC update. GUYS, Any thoughts on the claim that RIR cases wil be complete by end of April 2007 ?
AILA's 03/15/2007 Liaison Meeting minutes reflect the following statistics:
Total Cases Pending: 96,304
TR Cases: Approx. 75,000 [Recruitment instructions and job order will be completed by Mary 2007]
RIR Cases: Approx. 20,000 [Most of RIR cases expected to be completed by the end of April, 2007, except problem cases]
Total RIR Conversion Received: 6,000
RIR Eligible Determination Cases: 5,100
Here is the BEC update. GUYS, Any thoughts on the claim that RIR cases wil be complete by end of April 2007 ?
AILA's 03/15/2007 Liaison Meeting minutes reflect the following statistics:
Total Cases Pending: 96,304
TR Cases: Approx. 75,000 [Recruitment instructions and job order will be completed by Mary 2007]
RIR Cases: Approx. 20,000 [Most of RIR cases expected to be completed by the end of April, 2007, except problem cases]
Total RIR Conversion Received: 6,000
RIR Eligible Determination Cases: 5,100
more...
Macaca
08-01 08:03 PM
The Speaker In Charge (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073101628.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Harold Meyerson (meyersonh@washpost.com), August 1, 2007
This is one of those odd weeks when Congress may actually work. Both houses are likely to pass Democratic bills to expand SCHIP, the children's health coverage program. Yesterday, the House enacted lobbying reform, and the Senate may follow suit tomorrow. Also yesterday, the House passed a bill restoring the right of victims of pay discrimination to sue their employers.
In short, it's one of those weeks when Nancy Pelosi has no doubts about the wisdom of her decision to become speaker of the House.
"What's it like?" she asked herself, beaming, at the conclusion of a breakfast meeting with roughly 20 liberal journalists yesterday morning.
"It's fabulous! Absolutely fabulous!"
It can't always be thus. Her biggest frustration, of course, is Congress's inability to end the war in Iraq, which she terms "a huge moral catastrophe for the country." It is the public's biggest frustration as well, she says, and the main reason that popular support for Congress has plummeted.
In September, Iraq will once again be Congress's chief item of business, when Gen. David Petraeus delivers his state-of-the-war report.
Pelosi (understandably, given the administration's mountain of misrepresentation on all war-related matters) is wary. "The plural of anecdote is not data," she said. "I'm very concerned they'll pass off anecdotal successes as progress in Iraq."
The question in September will be whether congressional Republicans continue to support President Bush's open-ended commitment to keeping U.S. forces in Iraq while a civil war rages around them. To date, the Republicans' strategy, and not just on the war, has been to thwart the Democrats at every turn and to use the Senate's 60-vote supermajority requirement both to create a "do-nothing" Congress against which they can run and to spare their president from having to veto popular legislation. (Why they care about sparing Bush -- he will never face voters again; they will -- plunges us into the murk of abnormal psychology.)
The GOP strategy is not without its pitfalls. Republicans have succeeded in tanking Congress's approval ratings, but polls consistently show the public, most importantly in swing districts, preferring Democrats to Republicans. With this week's vote on expanding SCHIP, though, Democrats are convinced that the price of blocking health care for uninsured children is more than many Republicans are willing to pay. Bush has vowed to veto the legislation; Pelosi, noting with an almost incredulous glee that the administration will stand athwart children's health care on the grounds of opposing a higher tobacco tax, says, simply, "Welcome to this discussion."
Not all discussions, even in a good week, are so pleasurable to anticipate. Asked about the resolution that her congressional colleague Jay Inslee of Washington has introduced to impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Pelosi put her hands to her temples as if to ward off a headache. For the past year, Pelosi has made clear to her colleagues and the public alike that she has no interest in pursuing the impeachment option, though Gonzales is certainly doing his damnedest to change her mind. She remains unpersuaded, believing that impeachment would fail and in the process would make weeks such as this one -- a week in which the public's business is at last getting done -- far more uncommon than they already are.
Pelosi understands the gravity of the damage that the administration has done to the Constitution and why that has impelled some of her colleagues to advocate impeachment. "If I were not the speaker and I were not in Congress," she said, very quietly, as she concluded her answer, "I would probably be advocating for impeachment." But the consequences she foresees from stopping the nation's business for an unwinnable fight outweighs those considerations.
Pelosi deserves considerable credit for holding her party together on a range of divisive issues, but she plainly views the coming fight among House Democrats on fuel efficiency standards as irrepressible.
The energy bill the House will pass this week contains no provisions that would raise those standards; such provisions, if any, await the outcome of a battle between Pelosi and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, the Democrat who has represented Detroit and the auto industry in Congress since 1955 (that is, before tailfins).
"I respect all our chairmen," Pelosi said. But the legislation, she continued, isn't about them. "It's about our children's ability to breathe clean air. Nothing less than the planet is at stake. I love him [Dingell] dearly, but we have to prevail. . . . The forces at work here [against stricter standards] are rich and entrenched," she concluded, "and it takes just a few [votes] to prevent us from unleashing the future."
Thus, the most elegant of happy warriors, in a week when it's fun to be speaker.
This is one of those odd weeks when Congress may actually work. Both houses are likely to pass Democratic bills to expand SCHIP, the children's health coverage program. Yesterday, the House enacted lobbying reform, and the Senate may follow suit tomorrow. Also yesterday, the House passed a bill restoring the right of victims of pay discrimination to sue their employers.
In short, it's one of those weeks when Nancy Pelosi has no doubts about the wisdom of her decision to become speaker of the House.
"What's it like?" she asked herself, beaming, at the conclusion of a breakfast meeting with roughly 20 liberal journalists yesterday morning.
"It's fabulous! Absolutely fabulous!"
It can't always be thus. Her biggest frustration, of course, is Congress's inability to end the war in Iraq, which she terms "a huge moral catastrophe for the country." It is the public's biggest frustration as well, she says, and the main reason that popular support for Congress has plummeted.
In September, Iraq will once again be Congress's chief item of business, when Gen. David Petraeus delivers his state-of-the-war report.
Pelosi (understandably, given the administration's mountain of misrepresentation on all war-related matters) is wary. "The plural of anecdote is not data," she said. "I'm very concerned they'll pass off anecdotal successes as progress in Iraq."
The question in September will be whether congressional Republicans continue to support President Bush's open-ended commitment to keeping U.S. forces in Iraq while a civil war rages around them. To date, the Republicans' strategy, and not just on the war, has been to thwart the Democrats at every turn and to use the Senate's 60-vote supermajority requirement both to create a "do-nothing" Congress against which they can run and to spare their president from having to veto popular legislation. (Why they care about sparing Bush -- he will never face voters again; they will -- plunges us into the murk of abnormal psychology.)
The GOP strategy is not without its pitfalls. Republicans have succeeded in tanking Congress's approval ratings, but polls consistently show the public, most importantly in swing districts, preferring Democrats to Republicans. With this week's vote on expanding SCHIP, though, Democrats are convinced that the price of blocking health care for uninsured children is more than many Republicans are willing to pay. Bush has vowed to veto the legislation; Pelosi, noting with an almost incredulous glee that the administration will stand athwart children's health care on the grounds of opposing a higher tobacco tax, says, simply, "Welcome to this discussion."
Not all discussions, even in a good week, are so pleasurable to anticipate. Asked about the resolution that her congressional colleague Jay Inslee of Washington has introduced to impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Pelosi put her hands to her temples as if to ward off a headache. For the past year, Pelosi has made clear to her colleagues and the public alike that she has no interest in pursuing the impeachment option, though Gonzales is certainly doing his damnedest to change her mind. She remains unpersuaded, believing that impeachment would fail and in the process would make weeks such as this one -- a week in which the public's business is at last getting done -- far more uncommon than they already are.
Pelosi understands the gravity of the damage that the administration has done to the Constitution and why that has impelled some of her colleagues to advocate impeachment. "If I were not the speaker and I were not in Congress," she said, very quietly, as she concluded her answer, "I would probably be advocating for impeachment." But the consequences she foresees from stopping the nation's business for an unwinnable fight outweighs those considerations.
Pelosi deserves considerable credit for holding her party together on a range of divisive issues, but she plainly views the coming fight among House Democrats on fuel efficiency standards as irrepressible.
The energy bill the House will pass this week contains no provisions that would raise those standards; such provisions, if any, await the outcome of a battle between Pelosi and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, the Democrat who has represented Detroit and the auto industry in Congress since 1955 (that is, before tailfins).
"I respect all our chairmen," Pelosi said. But the legislation, she continued, isn't about them. "It's about our children's ability to breathe clean air. Nothing less than the planet is at stake. I love him [Dingell] dearly, but we have to prevail. . . . The forces at work here [against stricter standards] are rich and entrenched," she concluded, "and it takes just a few [votes] to prevent us from unleashing the future."
Thus, the most elegant of happy warriors, in a week when it's fun to be speaker.
nhfirefighter13
June 10th, 2004, 08:13 PM
I'm almost done with my portrait class and I'm still having some posing issues (portrait work isn't reallly my thing, apparently.)
I put the Mamiya away and played with the 1D this week. Other than some levels adjustments and resizing, they haven't been altered.
What do you think?
I put the Mamiya away and played with the 1D this week. Other than some levels adjustments and resizing, they haven't been altered.
What do you think?
more...
Macaca
07-31 05:23 PM
It's Time to End Or Reduce The Cloture Clog (http://rollcall.com/issues/53_15/guest/19599-1.html) By Robert Weiner and John Larmett, July 31 2007
Robert Weiner, president of Robert Weiner Associates Public Affairs, worked for 16 years in the House of Representatives and for six years in the Clinton White House. John Larmett, senior policy analyst at Robert Weiner Associates, was legislative assistant/press secretary to Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) and former Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D-Wis.).
The Senate's cloture rule defeats democracy. It lets public servants hide and obfuscate behind a parliamentary quirk never intended by the framers of the Constitution. It's time to end or significantly change the cloture rule, as was last done in 1975, and move to a true democracy so that the House and Senate equally represent the American people.
There are checks and balances, the only ones the Founding Fathers stated and intended: a presidential veto, which Congress can override with two-thirds, the only supermajority specified in the Constitution; the courts; and elections. No one ever foresaw parliamentary sleight of hand as a block of the will of the majority. If Congress wants to restore Americans' confidence in its work from the current all-time lows, it needs to allow the system to work as common sense, the Constitution and the framers dictate.
During the April-May 2005 "crisis" on judicial nominations, the "Gang of 14," seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, agreed to oppose the constitutional or "nuclear" option and to oppose filibusters of judicial nominations except in "extraordinary circumstances." However, the Senate has failed to cut off debate on other issues 57 times since then, making clear that the system has failed.
Democrats are right to scream Republican "obstructionism," but Republicans, when they were in the majority, also were right to scream Democratic obstructionism. Both sides use and abuse the rule when they are in the minority to create some supermajority fantasy the public will not understand - and then blame the other side for not getting a legislative agenda accomplished.
In last year's campaigns, House Democrats promised to change the way Congress does business - and do it within the first 100 hours they were in session. With a majority of 30-60 votes, but no supermajority requirement, the House passed its entire agenda. Despite majority support, hindered by the supermajority "cloture," the Senate has struggled all year just to pass a few bills. The American people get the feeling the Senate is a train that never quite leaves the station.
The slow train continued July 17-18 when Republicans scuttled a Democratic proposal ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq in a showdown capping an all-night debate. The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture, the 27th time this year alone that body has been unable to proceed on significant pieces of legislation. In the previous Congress (controlled by Republicans), Democrats were successful 34 times in blocking Republican legislation. Cloture has become the third rail of Congressional politics. It's time for the train to move on a different track.
Everyone has been properly complaining about obstructionism, but no one has said anything about changing the Senate rule on cloture. Since Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is talking about changing Senate rules to make it easier to restrict amendments on the floor, then why shouldn't the Senate also start the discussion about changing the cloture rule right now? It could be the difference in getting bills passed.
In early July, the minority's decision to filibuster the amendment by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), which stated that men and women serving in the military deserved the same amount of time at home that they served overseas, died on a 56-41 failed cloture vote - a majority supporting it but the media saying it "failed."
In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, and it should change it again. If not an end outright, the best approach to guarantee the will of the majority, why not at least drop the requirement to 55 votes - necessitating just a little bit of extra consensus to end debate. Let the will of the American people, and of a majority of the Senate itself, be acted upon.
It's time to end the cloture clog, regardless of who's in charge.
Robert Weiner, president of Robert Weiner Associates Public Affairs, worked for 16 years in the House of Representatives and for six years in the Clinton White House. John Larmett, senior policy analyst at Robert Weiner Associates, was legislative assistant/press secretary to Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) and former Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D-Wis.).
The Senate's cloture rule defeats democracy. It lets public servants hide and obfuscate behind a parliamentary quirk never intended by the framers of the Constitution. It's time to end or significantly change the cloture rule, as was last done in 1975, and move to a true democracy so that the House and Senate equally represent the American people.
There are checks and balances, the only ones the Founding Fathers stated and intended: a presidential veto, which Congress can override with two-thirds, the only supermajority specified in the Constitution; the courts; and elections. No one ever foresaw parliamentary sleight of hand as a block of the will of the majority. If Congress wants to restore Americans' confidence in its work from the current all-time lows, it needs to allow the system to work as common sense, the Constitution and the framers dictate.
During the April-May 2005 "crisis" on judicial nominations, the "Gang of 14," seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, agreed to oppose the constitutional or "nuclear" option and to oppose filibusters of judicial nominations except in "extraordinary circumstances." However, the Senate has failed to cut off debate on other issues 57 times since then, making clear that the system has failed.
Democrats are right to scream Republican "obstructionism," but Republicans, when they were in the majority, also were right to scream Democratic obstructionism. Both sides use and abuse the rule when they are in the minority to create some supermajority fantasy the public will not understand - and then blame the other side for not getting a legislative agenda accomplished.
In last year's campaigns, House Democrats promised to change the way Congress does business - and do it within the first 100 hours they were in session. With a majority of 30-60 votes, but no supermajority requirement, the House passed its entire agenda. Despite majority support, hindered by the supermajority "cloture," the Senate has struggled all year just to pass a few bills. The American people get the feeling the Senate is a train that never quite leaves the station.
The slow train continued July 17-18 when Republicans scuttled a Democratic proposal ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq in a showdown capping an all-night debate. The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture, the 27th time this year alone that body has been unable to proceed on significant pieces of legislation. In the previous Congress (controlled by Republicans), Democrats were successful 34 times in blocking Republican legislation. Cloture has become the third rail of Congressional politics. It's time for the train to move on a different track.
Everyone has been properly complaining about obstructionism, but no one has said anything about changing the Senate rule on cloture. Since Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is talking about changing Senate rules to make it easier to restrict amendments on the floor, then why shouldn't the Senate also start the discussion about changing the cloture rule right now? It could be the difference in getting bills passed.
In early July, the minority's decision to filibuster the amendment by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), which stated that men and women serving in the military deserved the same amount of time at home that they served overseas, died on a 56-41 failed cloture vote - a majority supporting it but the media saying it "failed."
In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, and it should change it again. If not an end outright, the best approach to guarantee the will of the majority, why not at least drop the requirement to 55 votes - necessitating just a little bit of extra consensus to end debate. Let the will of the American people, and of a majority of the Senate itself, be acted upon.
It's time to end the cloture clog, regardless of who's in charge.
2010 cricinfo, cricket live score,
sdckkbc
09-23 05:12 PM
My Original PERM labor certificate was lost in mail so we filed my I-140 without the PERM LC and asked USCIS to obtain the certificate from DoL. USCIS got the labour certificate from DoL and sent the original LC to us as an RFE to get my employer's and my signature on the perm certificate. My employer by mistake signed the labor certificate where I was supposed to sign :(. We have now covered his sign with white paint and I would be signing at correct place and sending back to USCIS. Do you think any white ink or over writing on original PERM certificate would matter in adjudication of my 140?
more...
shanghaibill
03-24 01:14 AM
I am an American citizen. My Chinese wife of 3 years and I will move to St. Louis and buy a home there. She is a businesswoman and must return to China several times per year to take care of a business there. She will be applying for her immigrant visa very soon.
HOW MANY DAYS PER YEAR CAN SHE LEAVE THE US PER YEAR WITHOUT PUTTING HER IMMIGRANT VISA IN JEOPARDY?
Being a US resident is more important that the job, but we would like to do both, if possible.
I apprecite ANY advice formn knowledgeable people, including non-lawyers.
HOW MANY DAYS PER YEAR CAN SHE LEAVE THE US PER YEAR WITHOUT PUTTING HER IMMIGRANT VISA IN JEOPARDY?
Being a US resident is more important that the job, but we would like to do both, if possible.
I apprecite ANY advice formn knowledgeable people, including non-lawyers.
hair Pakistan vs West Indies T20 Cricket Live Score, Streaming,
Dhundhun
03-20 03:41 AM
As I read the memo, it is OK for two employer to file H1B for a employee.
We discuss in this forum and IV discourages this.
We discuss in this forum and IV discourages this.
more...
bayoubengal
11-07 07:52 PM
With the new EB2 how much time does it take for Labor to get certified..I am applying in texas region in guess. I am from louisiana -mississippi area. Anyone there from this area ?.
hot 2011 Live Score Streaming.
go_guy123
03-07 08:07 PM
The Los Angeles Times reports that the President is pushing Senators Schumer and Graham to get their immigration proposal introduced. But many are skeptical the White House is serious.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/lip-service.html)
First try get healthcare done. If Obama cant even get the healthcare done, it even harder for him to do a CIR. His opponent gets the message that Obama and the democratic party is weak and insecure.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/lip-service.html)
First try get healthcare done. If Obama cant even get the healthcare done, it even harder for him to do a CIR. His opponent gets the message that Obama and the democratic party is weak and insecure.
more...
house Ndtv Cricket Live Score: Live
ramaonline
07-12 09:51 PM
http://www.alternet.org/asoldierspeaks/56397/
tattoo Cup 2011 | Live Score
GC_dude
03-30 10:05 PM
Pl. advise what all documents do I need to send to USCIS for extending stay on visitor visa for my parents.From all the sources I read so far here is the list of documents that I feel that needs to included :
1)I-539
2)Letter to USCIS (from me the sponsor) explaining the reason for extending the stay.Please post any letter format that I can use.
3)Copy of parents passport
4)Copy of I-94
5)Copy of original return ticket (with return date in 6 month from 1st entry)
6)$300 fees
Questions :
Do I need to sent I-131
Do I need to send bank statement and recenet paychecks
Do I need to buy new ticket for extended date and send a copy?
This is a last minute decision.I-94 expires in 3 weeks.PLease help .
Thanks
Ram
1)I-539
2)Letter to USCIS (from me the sponsor) explaining the reason for extending the stay.Please post any letter format that I can use.
3)Copy of parents passport
4)Copy of I-94
5)Copy of original return ticket (with return date in 6 month from 1st entry)
6)$300 fees
Questions :
Do I need to sent I-131
Do I need to send bank statement and recenet paychecks
Do I need to buy new ticket for extended date and send a copy?
This is a last minute decision.I-94 expires in 3 weeks.PLease help .
Thanks
Ram
more...
pictures Cricket Live Score Board:
BAS1
November 28th, 2004, 05:13 AM
Thank you for your response. I will pass it along.
Bev
Bev