vladdrac
06-11 03:57 PM
yes you cannot go wrong with boobies
wallpaper short mothers day poems from
dtekkedil
07-03 10:47 AM
I guarantee you they won't do a thing with it. in fact they won't even be able to take it home (the workers that is) because they are not allowed to, it's almost like accepting bribes, right? Hey I have an idea, let's all apply lipstick and kiss a piece of paper and send that :D yes, even guys, it's for the greater good:D
LOL!
You are missing the point! Those flowers aren't meant for them! It is to show our protest in a unique way that will attract attention from the media! Till date there are only 3 websites that I have come across that covers this fiasco... Don't you want our plight announced in the media???
It may not make a difference today... but it will definitely make a difference tomorrow if we keep it up. Let the public know more about this broken immigration system. Raise awareness about every pain that we go through!
LOL!
You are missing the point! Those flowers aren't meant for them! It is to show our protest in a unique way that will attract attention from the media! Till date there are only 3 websites that I have come across that covers this fiasco... Don't you want our plight announced in the media???
It may not make a difference today... but it will definitely make a difference tomorrow if we keep it up. Let the public know more about this broken immigration system. Raise awareness about every pain that we go through!
kurtz_wolfgang
08-15 01:23 PM
I would suggest Jonty, not to waste your time. I posted the question in general. It wasn't specific to you. If anybody is free and feels like, they can answer.:rolleyes::cool::cool::cool:
2011 short mothers day poems from
frostrated
08-10 08:45 AM
Friends
This is my situation
My I 140 approved, my status is F1 COS to H1 B
My wife situation, B1 (Visitor) COS to H4.
Now we r planning to change my wife status from H4 TO F1.
Can anyone with their experience suggest How complicated is my Case!!!!
Can we file COS by ourself or do you suggest to Hire an Attorney.
Pl advice
Thanks
It is very easy and do not need a lawyer.
First get admission into a school and then provide your H4 documents and a letter stating that you do not intend to reside in the US post-completion of your education and that you want to return to your country.
The school will then send your documents to the USCIS for a COS from H4 to F1.
How do I know this? Coz I went thru this.
But remember, do not file your 485 as long as your wife is in school. Coz if you go on to an EAD status, it will be very difficult to convert your F1 spouse to EAD. Since you are EB3 wait until your wife completes her education, and either gets a H1 or H4 prior to submitting 485.
This is my situation
My I 140 approved, my status is F1 COS to H1 B
My wife situation, B1 (Visitor) COS to H4.
Now we r planning to change my wife status from H4 TO F1.
Can anyone with their experience suggest How complicated is my Case!!!!
Can we file COS by ourself or do you suggest to Hire an Attorney.
Pl advice
Thanks
It is very easy and do not need a lawyer.
First get admission into a school and then provide your H4 documents and a letter stating that you do not intend to reside in the US post-completion of your education and that you want to return to your country.
The school will then send your documents to the USCIS for a COS from H4 to F1.
How do I know this? Coz I went thru this.
But remember, do not file your 485 as long as your wife is in school. Coz if you go on to an EAD status, it will be very difficult to convert your F1 spouse to EAD. Since you are EB3 wait until your wife completes her education, and either gets a H1 or H4 prior to submitting 485.
more...
raysaikat
01-22 10:39 PM
Thks for your prompt response snathan, but I've been getting paystub from my new employer Company B (so far I've got 2 paystubs) so in this case I can't possibly getting Pay Stubs from both Company A & B right?
The act suggested in the post above is illegal.
Your work with Company B is also illegal. You cannot start working for a different company until you have the H1-B petition submission receipt.
Your simplest and recommended course of action is to go out of the country and come back again. This will cause you least grief. But as you know, that course of action does entail the risk that your visa application could be denied.
The act suggested in the post above is illegal.
Your work with Company B is also illegal. You cannot start working for a different company until you have the H1-B petition submission receipt.
Your simplest and recommended course of action is to go out of the country and come back again. This will cause you least grief. But as you know, that course of action does entail the risk that your visa application could be denied.
Maverick_2008
04-16 03:51 PM
Is it true even for principal applicant? If 140 is denied, isn't your EAD invalidated? In other words, if 140 (immigration petition) is denied, there is nothing to adjust your status on and so even 485 becomes invalid.
Folks, please enlighten me, if I'm missing anything here.
Maverick_2008
No.
Her EAD is tied to her 485 not to your 140. As long as the 485 status is pending, her EAD is valid. Even if the 485 is rejected, if it is something that can be fixed thru an MTR, then filing an MTR and changing the status back to pending is still fine. It is not necessary to stop using the EAD for that brief period.
Folks, please enlighten me, if I'm missing anything here.
Maverick_2008
No.
Her EAD is tied to her 485 not to your 140. As long as the 485 status is pending, her EAD is valid. Even if the 485 is rejected, if it is something that can be fixed thru an MTR, then filing an MTR and changing the status back to pending is still fine. It is not necessary to stop using the EAD for that brief period.
more...
GCmuddu_H1BVaddu
03-20 02:10 AM
I have limited knowledge on this but my own logical thinking
1) Your best bet is to have baby in US and go to India
2) Baby will not be granted any green card as there is no application present for the baby 3) You can't get the baby to US on H-4 as a dependent bcz you are on EAD
4) Either you can file for a visitor visa (through EAD) or file for H-1B for the baby ;-) (just kidding on H1B stuff)
Go for (1).
Hi Everyone,
Our Immigration status is EAD and my wife is pregnant,
We are very happy with the news..
There is lot of possibility for us to be in India during due date, based on few important events in family.
We would like to know.. if baby is born in India then what possere ibilities are there for us to bring baby along with us?
(if mother stays in India for couple of more months)
can baby also get Green Card when we (parents) are allotted green card?
All your advices are always appreciated.
Thanks & Regards,
Satya.
Note: Admins if required, please close this thread and redirect to any existing ones, as i could not find one I have posted a new thread.
1) Your best bet is to have baby in US and go to India
2) Baby will not be granted any green card as there is no application present for the baby 3) You can't get the baby to US on H-4 as a dependent bcz you are on EAD
4) Either you can file for a visitor visa (through EAD) or file for H-1B for the baby ;-) (just kidding on H1B stuff)
Go for (1).
Hi Everyone,
Our Immigration status is EAD and my wife is pregnant,
We are very happy with the news..
There is lot of possibility for us to be in India during due date, based on few important events in family.
We would like to know.. if baby is born in India then what possere ibilities are there for us to bring baby along with us?
(if mother stays in India for couple of more months)
can baby also get Green Card when we (parents) are allotted green card?
All your advices are always appreciated.
Thanks & Regards,
Satya.
Note: Admins if required, please close this thread and redirect to any existing ones, as i could not find one I have posted a new thread.
2010 short mothers day poems from
GoneSouth
03-15 05:25 PM
If the first labor is done through PERM, can the 2nd labor be filed? I had heard that there is a policy of one PERM per company per employee. Does that not apply if the new job with the same company is substantially different. That's right. Second PERM can be filed for same employee at same company if first PERM is already approved (not pending) and second PERM is for a "substantially different" position.
Would you please elaborate on "substantially different". If the job title is different and job duties are very different, would that qualify as "substantially different". I have been thinking about doing the same. This is not well defined. In my case, the second PERM was for a position in a different O*NET category and a different job zone, and this was considered "substantially different" by DoL. My guess would be that if the two positions are different O*net codes, you should probably be fine (this is a guess only - please consult your attorney).
Is there any issue when 1st labor was not a PERM labor and 2nd labor is going to be PERM labor and both from same employer ?Sorry, I don't have any experience in that area, so I can't comment.
Would you please elaborate on "substantially different". If the job title is different and job duties are very different, would that qualify as "substantially different". I have been thinking about doing the same. This is not well defined. In my case, the second PERM was for a position in a different O*NET category and a different job zone, and this was considered "substantially different" by DoL. My guess would be that if the two positions are different O*net codes, you should probably be fine (this is a guess only - please consult your attorney).
Is there any issue when 1st labor was not a PERM labor and 2nd labor is going to be PERM labor and both from same employer ?Sorry, I don't have any experience in that area, so I can't comment.
more...
bkarnik
05-18 09:24 PM
Alabaman,
We have repeatedly stressed the fact that our members are from all over the place. That we represent not only our members but the over 500,000 EB applicants from all over the world who are stuck in the process. On the other hand we cannot always control the spin that individual news organizations choose -- this CNN-IBN covers Indian issues and chose to characterize us that way.
There were Chinese members who attended our DC event, but this reporter didn't film them! Sucks.
See what I said earlier many times, including here:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=9897&postcount=55
BEE: If I am not mistaken, there is a brief clip showing the chinese members.
We have repeatedly stressed the fact that our members are from all over the place. That we represent not only our members but the over 500,000 EB applicants from all over the world who are stuck in the process. On the other hand we cannot always control the spin that individual news organizations choose -- this CNN-IBN covers Indian issues and chose to characterize us that way.
There were Chinese members who attended our DC event, but this reporter didn't film them! Sucks.
See what I said earlier many times, including here:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=9897&postcount=55
BEE: If I am not mistaken, there is a brief clip showing the chinese members.
hair short mothers day poems from
ghost
02-07 10:28 AM
they are talking about statistics on legal immigration backlogs and suggesting that they be cleared....aligned with IV goals
more...
houston2005
03-05 09:30 PM
We cannot justify the opposition to price increase as INS expects the fees to be paid by employer. So if needed employers can oppose not the employees. Only fees the candidates expect to pay is citizenship fees and all other immigration related fees should be paid by Employers as they are sponsoring gc
Totally disagree. Only a small %age of employers pay the fees, rest is all borne by the applicant. This includes universities, companies etc. There are so many components of fees that everything is not covered by employer.
Do most of the companies cover EAD (every year), Adv. parole (every year), I 485 etc.. fees. The arguemnt given by USCIS (read their website) for I 485 increase is that it will be processed in 6 months and therfore no need to apply for EAD and AP fees. The argument is fallible is that it does not counts retrogression adn name check, it is simply assumed everyone will get their I485 processed in 6 months.
They are not using technology (because they can't hire more H1b and softwarre professional) but using the excessive money to support theeri old fashioned systems.
What a mess 180% fees increase on most of the applications?
Totally disagree. Only a small %age of employers pay the fees, rest is all borne by the applicant. This includes universities, companies etc. There are so many components of fees that everything is not covered by employer.
Do most of the companies cover EAD (every year), Adv. parole (every year), I 485 etc.. fees. The arguemnt given by USCIS (read their website) for I 485 increase is that it will be processed in 6 months and therfore no need to apply for EAD and AP fees. The argument is fallible is that it does not counts retrogression adn name check, it is simply assumed everyone will get their I485 processed in 6 months.
They are not using technology (because they can't hire more H1b and softwarre professional) but using the excessive money to support theeri old fashioned systems.
What a mess 180% fees increase on most of the applications?
hot short mothers day poems from
STAmisha
11-14 02:32 PM
Lawyer told me that I cannot contest. They screwed it up some thing
more...
house short mothers day poems for
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
tattoo short mothers day poems for
GoGreen
07-18 09:58 AM
Hello all, my lawyer is charging $600 for EAD (including uscis fees), I heard from one of my friends that EAD can be applied by yourself.
Has anyone done that?
Is it easy to do that?
Has anyone done that?
Is it easy to do that?
more...
pictures short mothers day poems from
theshiningsun
02-24 03:50 AM
this is what i know
since I-140 is approved and I-485 is pending for more than 6 months therefore employer withdrawing I-140 will hv no effect on GC process
u can get copy of I-140 approval by filing FOIA rqst but it takes about 4-5 months
again, this is what i know but i am not a lawyer, pls consult an attorney b4 any action
btw how does ur employer expect that u not go to another company if u r going to lose ur job with him?
since I-140 is approved and I-485 is pending for more than 6 months therefore employer withdrawing I-140 will hv no effect on GC process
u can get copy of I-140 approval by filing FOIA rqst but it takes about 4-5 months
again, this is what i know but i am not a lawyer, pls consult an attorney b4 any action
btw how does ur employer expect that u not go to another company if u r going to lose ur job with him?
dresses 2010 short mothers day poems
maine_gc
04-21 08:51 AM
I recently renewed our passports at Indian Embassy, Washington D.C . I sent 2"X2" size photographs and there was no problem in passport renewal.
How long did it take for you to renew the passport. My appointment date is on Apr 03 and they received my documents on March 31st. I did not get the passport yet. Do you have a number to call them. I called all the numbers listed on the website and no one answers.
How long did it take for you to renew the passport. My appointment date is on Apr 03 and they received my documents on March 31st. I did not get the passport yet. Do you have a number to call them. I called all the numbers listed on the website and no one answers.
more...
makeup short mothers day poems for
eb3India
09-05 03:57 PM
Well if the Republicans want those hispanic votes why dont they
pass the CIR right away? Why they have to wait until the mid term?
oh yaa, they will be losing all the red-neck neo-cons vote ;) right away, in my view everybody includeing Dems are just test water and see how people in their consitutancy are feeling about immigration subject and results show many americans are against CIR in principal (thanks to Lou and co campain).
It will be really bad if Reps wins the house again, they can really push their neo-con agenda and CIR will be history very soon.
so It is really important for us to have Dems wining this election :D
pass the CIR right away? Why they have to wait until the mid term?
oh yaa, they will be losing all the red-neck neo-cons vote ;) right away, in my view everybody includeing Dems are just test water and see how people in their consitutancy are feeling about immigration subject and results show many americans are against CIR in principal (thanks to Lou and co campain).
It will be really bad if Reps wins the house again, they can really push their neo-con agenda and CIR will be history very soon.
so It is really important for us to have Dems wining this election :D
girlfriend short mothers day poems from
sanjeev_2004
10-04 02:10 PM
Saeed,
I 140 can processed through premioum process from last week.
Can you tell what was state of filing you labor. My company filed from IL in july 2004 in EB2-RIR case. My Labor is still in process.45 days latter got in March.
sanjeev
I 140 can processed through premioum process from last week.
Can you tell what was state of filing you labor. My company filed from IL in july 2004 in EB2-RIR case. My Labor is still in process.45 days latter got in March.
sanjeev
hairstyles short mothers day poems from
arpu31
11-17 01:03 PM
I believe u can apply ur own H4. because u have the H1 approval from ur spouse. just download form from uscis website. there is complete instruction over there.
Thx
Thanks! But if I apply for my own H4, I would require my copy of I797 and the I94 attached to that. My employer doesnt provide me with the copy of those. Would the documents from my husband good enough to apply in US?
Arpu
Thx
Thanks! But if I apply for my own H4, I would require my copy of I797 and the I94 attached to that. My employer doesnt provide me with the copy of those. Would the documents from my husband good enough to apply in US?
Arpu
yetanotherguyinline
01-18 01:48 PM
Great initiative Gopal :)
satyab7
05-03 08:49 PM
Interesting analysis , can any one be able to relate this to backlog centers, retrogression , priority dates ect.
No comments:
Post a Comment