kirupa
02-03 01:21 PM
Are you using WinForms or WPF?
wallpaper Trendy Short Emo Haircut
ardnahc
03-25 06:35 PM
Hi,
We filed our 485s during the July 2007 fiasco. We moved after an year, so we updated USCIS with our new address by filling AR11 online for all the petitions(485s, 140)
My 485 status is in pending state but by husband's petition has a status of "Notice Returned as Undeliverable". Now it is more than 6 months since that update. Do I have to follow up on it? Any input appreciated. Thanks much in advance.
We filed our 485s during the July 2007 fiasco. We moved after an year, so we updated USCIS with our new address by filling AR11 online for all the petitions(485s, 140)
My 485 status is in pending state but by husband's petition has a status of "Notice Returned as Undeliverable". Now it is more than 6 months since that update. Do I have to follow up on it? Any input appreciated. Thanks much in advance.
cygent
08-23 10:56 PM
Any success stories / anybody in progress (we can form a team/strategize?) - Or could you point me towards a related thread?
PD March, 2005 EB3
Labor - RIR, Approved 04/2007
I-140 filed 06/2007 (pending)
I-485 filed 07/2007 (of course pending)
Case - Working for petitioning Employer who is folding up :mad:.
Is there a difference b/w a company folding vs. getting bought out or changed name, etc. Any insight will be greatly appreciated with good karma.
PD March, 2005 EB3
Labor - RIR, Approved 04/2007
I-140 filed 06/2007 (pending)
I-485 filed 07/2007 (of course pending)
Case - Working for petitioning Employer who is folding up :mad:.
Is there a difference b/w a company folding vs. getting bought out or changed name, etc. Any insight will be greatly appreciated with good karma.
2011 Even if this hairstyle was
krishna_brc
08-09 10:13 AM
if PD is not current in VB? One has to wait till PD is current to file 485....
Yes, we have to wiat till PD is current to file 485
Yes, we have to wiat till PD is current to file 485
more...
gc.4desi
03-29 08:04 PM
any inputs please?:confused:
sourav_bhaduri
08-19 08:38 AM
Hi Experts,
My L1 Individual petition was rejected, the reason was "Individual doesn't have enough specialized knowledge". My question is can I make fresh petition for L1 blanket approval after 6-7 months?
My L1 Individual petition was rejected, the reason was "Individual doesn't have enough specialized knowledge". My question is can I make fresh petition for L1 blanket approval after 6-7 months?
more...
bugmenot
09-29 03:42 PM
the economy is going to collapse if something does'nt happen in the next one day
2010 hair 2011 Short Hair Styles
priyankalal
11-16 08:55 AM
Hi All,
I fulfill the requirements of AC 21 (485 pending for more then 2 years and I 140 approved long back)
My current project is not my employer's client. There is one middle vendor from which I have got this project.
Now, I have heard that many consulting companies make you sign a contract which states that any client you find becomes their client and therefore forbidding you to join them directly. As we usually dont see papers while signing I am not sure if I did sign any such thing. My question is, if my employer sues me on this clause, does it hamper my I-485 processing? Any input in this context would be highly appreciated.Tension is killing me
Priya.
I fulfill the requirements of AC 21 (485 pending for more then 2 years and I 140 approved long back)
My current project is not my employer's client. There is one middle vendor from which I have got this project.
Now, I have heard that many consulting companies make you sign a contract which states that any client you find becomes their client and therefore forbidding you to join them directly. As we usually dont see papers while signing I am not sure if I did sign any such thing. My question is, if my employer sues me on this clause, does it hamper my I-485 processing? Any input in this context would be highly appreciated.Tension is killing me
Priya.
more...
Macaca
08-05 07:42 AM
A Polarized, and Polarizing, Congress (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301949.html) By David S. Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com), August 5, 2007
The distinguishing characteristic of this Congress was on vivid display the other day when the House debated a bill to expand the federal program that provides health insurance for children of the working poor.
Even when it is performing a useful service, this Congress manages to look ugly and mean-spirited. So much blood has been spilled, so much bile stockpiled on Capitol Hill, that no good deed goes untarnished.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a 10-year-old proven success. Originally a product of bipartisan consensus, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, it was one of the last domestic achievements before Monica and impeachment fever seized control.
It is up for renewal this year and suddenly has become a bone of contention. President Bush underfunded it in his budget; the $4.8 billion extra he proposed spending in the next five years would not finance insurance even for all those who are currently being served.
But when the Senate Finance Committee proposed boosting the funding to $35 billion -- financed by a hefty hike in tobacco taxes -- Bush threatened a veto, and he raised the rhetorical stakes by claiming that the measure was a step toward "government health insurance."
That was surprising news to Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, two staunch conservatives who had joined in sponsoring the Senate bill, which the Senate Finance Committee supported 17 to 4.
But rather than meet the president's unwise challenge with a strong bipartisan alternative, the House Democratic leadership decided to raise the partisan stakes even higher by bringing out a $50 billion bill that not only would expand SCHIP but would also curtail the private Medicare benefit delivery system that Bush favors.
To add insult to injury, House Democratic leaders then took a leaf from the old Republican playbook and brought the swollen bill to the floor with minimal time for debate and denied Republicans any opportunity to offer amendments.
The result was undisguised fury -- and some really ugly exchanges on the floor. The worst, given voice by former speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, among others, was the charge that the Democrats were opening the program to illegal immigrants. The National Republican Congressional Committee distributed that distortion wholesale across the country in a flurry of news releases playing to the same kind of nativist prejudice that sank the immigration reform bill. In fact, governors of both parties support the certification system included in the bill for assuring that families meet citizenship requirements; the governors know that too many legal residents have been wrongly disqualified because they could not locate their birth certificates.
In the end, the House bill passed on a near-party-line vote, 225 to 204, far short of the margin that would be needed to override the promised Bush veto. That means the program will probably have to be given a temporary renewal before the Sept. 30 deadline, and eventually Democrats and the White House will negotiate an agreement.
So it will go down as one more example of unnecessary conflict. No rational human being could explain why a program that both parties support and both want to continue could ignite such a fight.
But that is Washington in this era of polarized politics. As Congress heads out for its August recess, it has accomplished about as much as is usually the case at this stage. It passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and an overdue but healthy package of ethics reforms. It moved some routine legislation.
But what the public has seen and heard is mainly the ugly sound of partisan warfare. The Senate let a handful of dissident Republicans highjack the immigration bill. Its Democratic leadership marched up the hill and back down on repeated futile efforts to circumscribe American involvement in Iraq, then shamefully pulled back from a final vote when a constructive Republican alternative to the Bush policy was on offer.
The less-than-vital issue of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys has occupied more time and attention than the threat of a terrorist enclave in Pakistan -- or the unchecked growth of long-term debts that could sink Medicare and Social Security.
And when this Congress had an opportunity to take a relatively simple, incremental step to extend health insurance to a vulnerable group, the members managed to make a mess of it.
It's no wonder the approval ratings of Congress are so dismal.
The distinguishing characteristic of this Congress was on vivid display the other day when the House debated a bill to expand the federal program that provides health insurance for children of the working poor.
Even when it is performing a useful service, this Congress manages to look ugly and mean-spirited. So much blood has been spilled, so much bile stockpiled on Capitol Hill, that no good deed goes untarnished.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a 10-year-old proven success. Originally a product of bipartisan consensus, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, it was one of the last domestic achievements before Monica and impeachment fever seized control.
It is up for renewal this year and suddenly has become a bone of contention. President Bush underfunded it in his budget; the $4.8 billion extra he proposed spending in the next five years would not finance insurance even for all those who are currently being served.
But when the Senate Finance Committee proposed boosting the funding to $35 billion -- financed by a hefty hike in tobacco taxes -- Bush threatened a veto, and he raised the rhetorical stakes by claiming that the measure was a step toward "government health insurance."
That was surprising news to Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, two staunch conservatives who had joined in sponsoring the Senate bill, which the Senate Finance Committee supported 17 to 4.
But rather than meet the president's unwise challenge with a strong bipartisan alternative, the House Democratic leadership decided to raise the partisan stakes even higher by bringing out a $50 billion bill that not only would expand SCHIP but would also curtail the private Medicare benefit delivery system that Bush favors.
To add insult to injury, House Democratic leaders then took a leaf from the old Republican playbook and brought the swollen bill to the floor with minimal time for debate and denied Republicans any opportunity to offer amendments.
The result was undisguised fury -- and some really ugly exchanges on the floor. The worst, given voice by former speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, among others, was the charge that the Democrats were opening the program to illegal immigrants. The National Republican Congressional Committee distributed that distortion wholesale across the country in a flurry of news releases playing to the same kind of nativist prejudice that sank the immigration reform bill. In fact, governors of both parties support the certification system included in the bill for assuring that families meet citizenship requirements; the governors know that too many legal residents have been wrongly disqualified because they could not locate their birth certificates.
In the end, the House bill passed on a near-party-line vote, 225 to 204, far short of the margin that would be needed to override the promised Bush veto. That means the program will probably have to be given a temporary renewal before the Sept. 30 deadline, and eventually Democrats and the White House will negotiate an agreement.
So it will go down as one more example of unnecessary conflict. No rational human being could explain why a program that both parties support and both want to continue could ignite such a fight.
But that is Washington in this era of polarized politics. As Congress heads out for its August recess, it has accomplished about as much as is usually the case at this stage. It passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and an overdue but healthy package of ethics reforms. It moved some routine legislation.
But what the public has seen and heard is mainly the ugly sound of partisan warfare. The Senate let a handful of dissident Republicans highjack the immigration bill. Its Democratic leadership marched up the hill and back down on repeated futile efforts to circumscribe American involvement in Iraq, then shamefully pulled back from a final vote when a constructive Republican alternative to the Bush policy was on offer.
The less-than-vital issue of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys has occupied more time and attention than the threat of a terrorist enclave in Pakistan -- or the unchecked growth of long-term debts that could sink Medicare and Social Security.
And when this Congress had an opportunity to take a relatively simple, incremental step to extend health insurance to a vulnerable group, the members managed to make a mess of it.
It's no wonder the approval ratings of Congress are so dismal.
hair funky hair styles
Sakthisagar
10-20 11:58 AM
This Unique Id is good for everyone, T.N.Seshan was recommending this way back in 1988. but the Present Ruling party at that time never agreed because they cannot do hacking polling booths but now it is all very easy.. Guess what.... the EVM electronic voting machines! get rid of that first go back to ballot papers, see who wins and who looses and how people of India are enlightened about the politics. Do they really ahve the guts to do that??
more...
looivy
08-13 10:07 AM
Hi Gurus,
I am in my 9th year H1-B. I have my I-140 approved and I-485 pending since July 2007 through employer A (EB-3).
Employer B is willing to hire me on H1-B (transfer) using AC21 portability (and similarity of jobs). After the move, employer A will revoke my I-140 for sure.
Can I apply for an H1-B transfer with employer C after a year or two using AC21 portability? I do not want to use EAD. I want to use H1-B tansfer (3 year extensions)?
This is a major decision that I have to make.
Please reply at your earliest convenience.
Thanks.
I am in my 9th year H1-B. I have my I-140 approved and I-485 pending since July 2007 through employer A (EB-3).
Employer B is willing to hire me on H1-B (transfer) using AC21 portability (and similarity of jobs). After the move, employer A will revoke my I-140 for sure.
Can I apply for an H1-B transfer with employer C after a year or two using AC21 portability? I do not want to use EAD. I want to use H1-B tansfer (3 year extensions)?
This is a major decision that I have to make.
Please reply at your earliest convenience.
Thanks.
hot funky hairstyles for long hair
issue08
04-20 09:18 AM
what if the non protonc is also denied. My case is also the same, applied non protonc but that got also denied.
more...
house Creative Black Short Hairstyle
voldemar
02-06 09:35 PM
My friend has his I-485 filed and has got EAD/AP, but the priority date is so behind, that he has no chance of getting a green card before his marriage. So, as I understand he should be able to bring his wife on H4 (as long as he maintains H1). My question is: does he have to re-file for I-485 to include his wife and if so will the priority date remain the same as the first application?She needs to file her own I-485 but only when PD become current. She has the same PD as primary applicant.
tattoo funky hairstyles for long hair
enggr
11-19 01:46 PM
PERM processing date released (as of 10/31/2010).
# Analyst Reviews: September 2010
# Audits: October 2008
My spouse's priority date is late nov 2008 and we are still waiting. Has anyone seen any approvals of audited PERM filed in nov 2008. Please share your experience.
i assume DOL is processing nov as of this month.
Any analysis/predictions?
# Analyst Reviews: September 2010
# Audits: October 2008
My spouse's priority date is late nov 2008 and we are still waiting. Has anyone seen any approvals of audited PERM filed in nov 2008. Please share your experience.
i assume DOL is processing nov as of this month.
Any analysis/predictions?
more...
pictures dresses funky hairstyles, long
waitiktsang
11-30 04:12 AM
Hi,
I am lawful permanent resident of United States, my I-130 is going to be expired on July, 2010, the last time I returned to United States was on October, 2009 and also depart on October, 2009.
I am now planned to return and live in the US for good on September, 2010, however by that time, my I-130 will be expired. Since my last time I left from US was on October 2009 and it is less than one year between the date I am going to return to US for good on September 2010. For this case, should I be fine by just holding just my green card to return to US for good.
Please kindly advise.
Thanks
wtt
I am lawful permanent resident of United States, my I-130 is going to be expired on July, 2010, the last time I returned to United States was on October, 2009 and also depart on October, 2009.
I am now planned to return and live in the US for good on September, 2010, however by that time, my I-130 will be expired. Since my last time I left from US was on October 2009 and it is less than one year between the date I am going to return to US for good on September 2010. For this case, should I be fine by just holding just my green card to return to US for good.
Please kindly advise.
Thanks
wtt
dresses Long Blonde Hairstyles For
swede
08-19 04:50 PM
Yes it is.
For H1B, enter employer name and state:
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CaseH1B.aspx
Just found out what my foreign coworkers make. Wish it would show all employees...
For H1B, enter employer name and state:
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CaseH1B.aspx
Just found out what my foreign coworkers make. Wish it would show all employees...
more...
makeup funky hairstyles pictures.
anzarafaq
06-16 02:17 PM
Hi,
My I-140 was approved in May and I am still waiting for I-485 approval. I filed in August 2007 concurrently and my Priority Date is June 2004.
I thought that concurrent filing will also mean concurrent approval, but may be this is not the case. Otherwise should I call NSC and ask them about it (whats the best way to call them ?)
Thanks
:confused:
My I-140 was approved in May and I am still waiting for I-485 approval. I filed in August 2007 concurrently and my Priority Date is June 2004.
I thought that concurrent filing will also mean concurrent approval, but may be this is not the case. Otherwise should I call NSC and ask them about it (whats the best way to call them ?)
Thanks
:confused:
girlfriend funky hair styles
sukhwinderd
08-25 09:25 AM
my wife and i went to renew our DLs.
i am on EAD and my wife is on AOS(pending 485) and we both have AP valid till feb 2010.
i got a temporary DL and will get 1 year DL in the mail.
my wife got temp DL but will get DL till feb 2010 only (expiration of AP-I94). they wanted to see I-140 or I-130 alongwith I-485.
i emailed flhsmv.gov and they also say that now you must show 140 and dependent names in 485 application which most of us dont have.
i am on EAD and my wife is on AOS(pending 485) and we both have AP valid till feb 2010.
i got a temporary DL and will get 1 year DL in the mail.
my wife got temp DL but will get DL till feb 2010 only (expiration of AP-I94). they wanted to see I-140 or I-130 alongwith I-485.
i emailed flhsmv.gov and they also say that now you must show 140 and dependent names in 485 application which most of us dont have.
hairstyles funky short hair styles
jkamel5
06-06 02:28 PM
Hi,
I just got H1B. My wife is currently on her F-1/OPT. Can anyone guide me where I can find required documents to apply for H4 for my wife? Do you think I can do it myself or it needs a lawyer?
Thank you,
John
I just got H1B. My wife is currently on her F-1/OPT. Can anyone guide me where I can find required documents to apply for H4 for my wife? Do you think I can do it myself or it needs a lawyer?
Thank you,
John
belmontboy
05-01 06:50 PM
My firend lost his PERM approval document. Has anyone had the same experience?
What are the steps to get a duplicate approval Perm document?
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/perm_faqs_3-20-06.pdf
i am not sure if u can get the copy. might want to check with some lawyer.
What are the steps to get a duplicate approval Perm document?
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/perm_faqs_3-20-06.pdf
i am not sure if u can get the copy. might want to check with some lawyer.
Blog Feeds
03-08 07:40 AM
Congratulations to Swedish-born Paul N.J. Ottosson who won two Academy Awards this evening for Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing for The Hurt Locker. Ottosson came on a tourist visa in the 80s with some friends to try and make it as a rock musician. His friends went home, but he stayedand went on to become one of the top people in one of the most important jobs in filmmaking. Ottosson briefly mentioned his immigrant experience in his acceptance speech.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/immigrant-of-the-day-paul-nj-ottosson-sound-editor.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/immigrant-of-the-day-paul-nj-ottosson-sound-editor.html)
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий