satyakb
03-16 08:41 PM
Hi Immigration Voice Team,
I would like to know your advice,
My details are
- EB3 / Labor filed and approved during July/2007
- I140 & I485 filed concurrently during August/2007
- I140 got approved on Jan/16/2009
- EAD Renewal is made and existing one is valid till Nov/2010
I have only labor number, 140 approval notice with me. where as I do not have labor complete job description.
As of now
- Can I change my employer without any labor job description?
- Does my employer has still rights to revoke I140?
- How can I change job to new employer and protect myself from I140 revoke by existing employer?
- GC filing expenses was completely bared by employer only.
Thanks & Regards,
Satyakb
I would like to know your advice,
My details are
- EB3 / Labor filed and approved during July/2007
- I140 & I485 filed concurrently during August/2007
- I140 got approved on Jan/16/2009
- EAD Renewal is made and existing one is valid till Nov/2010
I have only labor number, 140 approval notice with me. where as I do not have labor complete job description.
As of now
- Can I change my employer without any labor job description?
- Does my employer has still rights to revoke I140?
- How can I change job to new employer and protect myself from I140 revoke by existing employer?
- GC filing expenses was completely bared by employer only.
Thanks & Regards,
Satyakb
wallpaper 8964d AW Chloe hairstyle 11010
semiGator
12-16 10:39 AM
As the article stated there are 47 million latinos and majority of them are citizens.....we don't have that kind of numbers to make an impact on either party.
jediknight
10-30 11:08 AM
One of their funny slogans is "Taxation without Representation", which should be our slogan really :)
Legal Immigrants are the only group that pays taxes without any representati
Has someone investigated the possibility of a legal challenge on the IRS withholding Medicare and Social Security Taxes? If that happens, there will be rush to pass legislation to remove barriers to legal immigration.
Legal Immigrants are the only group that pays taxes without any representati
Has someone investigated the possibility of a legal challenge on the IRS withholding Medicare and Social Security Taxes? If that happens, there will be rush to pass legislation to remove barriers to legal immigration.
2011 hairstyles for large women. Hair styles for women; Hair styles for women
vivek_k
11-18 10:37 AM
Hi! My company is moving to another address. My I-140 was filed on July 2, 2007 (USCIS receipt date August 20, 2007). My H-1B 6th year will end on July 1, 2009. My lawyer wants to file for the change of address and the H-1B extension together. He is asking for about $2k+ for self and family (incl atty fee and filing fees).
Is the change of address on H-1B that big a deal? Can anyone please advise? Is it not a simple AR-11 form that has to be filed? Are the requirements for change of address different once labor certification is done.
Thanks.
Is the change of address on H-1B that big a deal? Can anyone please advise? Is it not a simple AR-11 form that has to be filed? Are the requirements for change of address different once labor certification is done.
Thanks.
more...
eastindia
04-26 02:59 PM
What is stopping you from leaving this job?
There is something called AC21 that protects you like blanket on a baby.
There is something called AC21 that protects you like blanket on a baby.
learning01
03-23 08:56 PM
What's your point? If you can't analyze, let's know.
Check This
Check This
more...
pappu
01-20 11:10 PM
I am helping!!
Here's how:
[COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="4"][SIZE="5"]
Let me know if anyone has any issue accessing this link.
Thanks
Thank you very much!
Every effort will count in this massive task we have undertaken and we are sure to succeed with the help of our members. Thanks.
Here's how:
[COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="4"][SIZE="5"]
Let me know if anyone has any issue accessing this link.
Thanks
Thank you very much!
Every effort will count in this massive task we have undertaken and we are sure to succeed with the help of our members. Thanks.
2010 hairstyles for large women. hairstyles for large women.
Blog Feeds
03-31 03:40 PM
Good. Members of Congress who think Latino voters aren't paying attention and they can vote anti-immigrant to keep Tea Party activists happy may want to rethink that strategy. In related news. America's Voice has released poll data showing Latino voters are not energized and aren't planning on coming out in big numbers in November unless they seem some positive action on immigration reform. From America's Voice: Latino Decisions researcher and Stanford University professor Dr. Gary Segura highlighted and analyzed the findings: �Among all the key constituents in the 2008 Obama victory, Latino voters appear to be among the least enthusiastic...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/latino-groups-to-score-members-of-congress-on-immigration-issues.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/latino-groups-to-score-members-of-congress-on-immigration-issues.html)
more...
nychyna
09-02 05:43 PM
Hello out there. I have a question regarding co-sponsors for international fiance visas. My Dutch boyfriend are looking to marry after 3 years going the Fiance Visa route. I know the financial requirements I need to meet is $18, 212 for the both of us. I do make that, however, I haven't filed my taxes in years and I'm an independant contractor (whole other story). I live in New York, my mother lives in California and is willing to be a co-sponsor; she's retired, makes more than enough in her pension, social security and about $150K in savings. My question is, since she will be the co-sponsor and of course she'd need to fill out the I-134 (Affidavit of Support)--do I ALSO need to fill out the I-134 too?...or just her alone? Please help....Thanks all!!! Also what paperwork do they require?...Last 2 years of current tax returns? Thanks again!
hair pictures hairstyles for large women. hairstyles for large women. layered
stxvr
12-10 08:50 PM
I am on H1B extension. Means my stamp is expired.
I have a ticket to go to India. I am traveling through the following route
Boston- London- Bahrain - Bombay.
I heard that I need to have transit visa for UK as my connection is in UK (2 Hrs).
I don't have the UK visa and I will not have the US visa at the time of entry in UK.
I have very sort time now in my hand.
1. I really need to have the UK transit visa?
2. Yes then how to get this?
What should I do now?
I have a ticket to go to India. I am traveling through the following route
Boston- London- Bahrain - Bombay.
I heard that I need to have transit visa for UK as my connection is in UK (2 Hrs).
I don't have the UK visa and I will not have the US visa at the time of entry in UK.
I have very sort time now in my hand.
1. I really need to have the UK transit visa?
2. Yes then how to get this?
What should I do now?
more...
dealsnet
04-13 10:52 AM
1. You can start a business. But you can't work or spend time on it. Just spend money and some one can run it. Silent owner.
2. Same applicable for H4.
If you have EAD, H1 & H4 can work in your own business and work in current H1.
H1 & H4 (without EAD) forget about starting business and sit in your own company/shop/gas station etc.... & MAKE MONEY. This is the fact.
Question: Can person A on an H1B start own business while continuing to work with current H1B job? Can the business be not related to ones profession? Can a person on H4 visa start his won business too? Any answer is appreciated!
2. Same applicable for H4.
If you have EAD, H1 & H4 can work in your own business and work in current H1.
H1 & H4 (without EAD) forget about starting business and sit in your own company/shop/gas station etc.... & MAKE MONEY. This is the fact.
Question: Can person A on an H1B start own business while continuing to work with current H1B job? Can the business be not related to ones profession? Can a person on H4 visa start his won business too? Any answer is appreciated!
hot hairstyles for large women.
Macaca
03-06 08:44 PM
Some paras from Testing Time for Democrats (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501185.html)
The story of the new Congress is actually two stories. Democratic leaders and their grass-roots supporters will decide in the coming days which narrative will prevail.
In January, Democrats dominated the news, the public agenda and the Republicans. In the last weeks of February, the Republicans came back -- not by offering grand proposals but by using the limited tools they have to prove that Democrats don't have enough power, yet, to end the war in Iraq.
When they took control, Democrats looked crisp and disciplined, attributes not normally associated with their party. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's House quickly passed the Democrats' popular campaign promises, including measures on the minimum wage, stem cell research, renewable energy and reforms of the student loan and Medicare prescription drug programs.
This agenda had its skeptics, but it provided focus for a party long out of power and drew significant Republican defections, feeding a raft of "Republicans in Disarray" stories. Pelosi noted at a January news conference that so many Republicans voted for the Democratic proposals that one of her colleagues joked: "Maybe you made these bills too easy."
The Senate Democrats quickly pushed through a different version of the minimum-wage increase, and the party's leading foreign policy voices framed a critique of President Bush's Iraq policy that squared with the public's increasingly skeptical view of the war.
But recent weeks have held nothing but trouble for Democrats -- and it is odd, as one Democrat noted, that they should be on the defensive when the scandal over the treatment of wounded veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center has focused attention on yet another failed aspect of the administration's execution of the war and its aftermath.
Instead, one news story after another has highlighted differences among congressional Democrats over how to end the war. There is also the divide between the Washington party and activists at the grass roots and in the blogosphere. All of these problems are rooted in two unalterable facts: Democrats, on the basis of their thin majorities in Congress, lack the numbers to force an unwilling president to alter his course. And they are short of votes to cut off funds for the war altogether.
My Comments
Dems are not united on most issues.
Although this article is on Iraq, a similar situation will occur on Immigration. The big difference is that Dems are very interested in Iraq (they won elections on Iraq) whereas I haven't seen much much Democratic interest on Immigration.
The story of the new Congress is actually two stories. Democratic leaders and their grass-roots supporters will decide in the coming days which narrative will prevail.
In January, Democrats dominated the news, the public agenda and the Republicans. In the last weeks of February, the Republicans came back -- not by offering grand proposals but by using the limited tools they have to prove that Democrats don't have enough power, yet, to end the war in Iraq.
When they took control, Democrats looked crisp and disciplined, attributes not normally associated with their party. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's House quickly passed the Democrats' popular campaign promises, including measures on the minimum wage, stem cell research, renewable energy and reforms of the student loan and Medicare prescription drug programs.
This agenda had its skeptics, but it provided focus for a party long out of power and drew significant Republican defections, feeding a raft of "Republicans in Disarray" stories. Pelosi noted at a January news conference that so many Republicans voted for the Democratic proposals that one of her colleagues joked: "Maybe you made these bills too easy."
The Senate Democrats quickly pushed through a different version of the minimum-wage increase, and the party's leading foreign policy voices framed a critique of President Bush's Iraq policy that squared with the public's increasingly skeptical view of the war.
But recent weeks have held nothing but trouble for Democrats -- and it is odd, as one Democrat noted, that they should be on the defensive when the scandal over the treatment of wounded veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center has focused attention on yet another failed aspect of the administration's execution of the war and its aftermath.
Instead, one news story after another has highlighted differences among congressional Democrats over how to end the war. There is also the divide between the Washington party and activists at the grass roots and in the blogosphere. All of these problems are rooted in two unalterable facts: Democrats, on the basis of their thin majorities in Congress, lack the numbers to force an unwilling president to alter his course. And they are short of votes to cut off funds for the war altogether.
My Comments
Dems are not united on most issues.
Although this article is on Iraq, a similar situation will occur on Immigration. The big difference is that Dems are very interested in Iraq (they won elections on Iraq) whereas I haven't seen much much Democratic interest on Immigration.
more...
house Johansson Curly Haircut
Blog Feeds
11-02 08:50 AM
Will Sheriff Joe soon have to parade around in the striped jail uniforms he famously makes his inmates wear? According to the Arizona Republic: Maricopa County officials believe the discovery of a duplicate payroll log and database hidden in a secure computer system at the Sheriff's Office could reveal the extent of alleged misspending in Sheriff Joe Arpaio's agency. The sheriff's employee database operated parallel to a county-run system, recording a different set of sheriff's staff assignments and payments than official records provided to county auditors. County officials say the system has existed since the early part of the decade,...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/11/breaking-sheriff-joe-facing-corruption-probe.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/11/breaking-sheriff-joe-facing-corruption-probe.html)
tattoo Short Hairstyles for Women
Hatianleo
10-16 03:39 PM
Hey everybody, My friend have a situation. He is from Haiti and he been in the USA since 1998 on a visitors visa but stayed. Graduated school, but couldn't do nothing else because of his papers, he lived with his sisters and they didn't work on it. Had a little situation in 2007 where he left the scene of an accident because he didn't have papers. They called it a felony, and now the (TPS) came around and he got denied because of that felony. He doesn't know where or what to do, don't have money for lawyers because he cant work. Anybody out there been there that knows what to do please feel free to do so. GOD bless
more...
pictures short hair styles fat women
cr125rider
05-01 08:20 PM
That is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo coooooooooooooooooooooooool. I absolutly (sp?) LOVE IT!
dresses Bob hairstyle is comfortable
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.
more...
makeup hairstyles for large women.
MDix
02-22 07:01 AM
Total 18166 ROW PERM certified( including expired ones). Max 60% will fall into EB2 that mean total 11K ROW(EB2).
girlfriend hairstyles for large women.
Blog Feeds
03-12 08:40 PM
As Rodney King famously remarked, "Why can't we all get along?" As Democrats and Republicans in Congress have spent the past year beating each other up regarding the health care bill, do we want the same thing to happen with immigration this year? At the moment, President Obama cannot even find two Republican senators out of 40 to support Comprehensive Immigration Reform. And anyone who thinks that all Democrats are united in support of CIR must be drinking the Kool-Aid. But does this mean that immigration reform is DOA in 2010? Not necessarily. There are individual pieces of immigration legislation...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/03/reform-the-legal-immigration-system.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/03/reform-the-legal-immigration-system.html)
hairstyles hairstyles for large women.
raj76
01-07 12:41 AM
This may seem strange and confusing. Here is my case
I changed my employer from A to B with an intention of taking advantage of an existing approved labor with employer B. I applied for I-140 and H1B transfer at the same time in March 2007. I-140 was approved in June 2007. In July 2007, I applied for EAD and 485. Meanwhile, I got an RFE for H1b transfer and my attorney responded to this in time. I got my EAD approval in Sep 2007 and got FP done before my I-94 (thru company A) expiration in Nov 2007. I got a denial notice for my H1B on Nov 13 2007. My attorney missed the appeal date so no appeal has been filed for the H1B denial.
Here are my questions:
- Am I currently out of status since my I-94 expired in Nov 2007?
- If I am not out of status, what is the next course of action I should be taking?
- Will there be any issues when i try to renew my EAD?
Thank you in advance for your advice.
I changed my employer from A to B with an intention of taking advantage of an existing approved labor with employer B. I applied for I-140 and H1B transfer at the same time in March 2007. I-140 was approved in June 2007. In July 2007, I applied for EAD and 485. Meanwhile, I got an RFE for H1b transfer and my attorney responded to this in time. I got my EAD approval in Sep 2007 and got FP done before my I-94 (thru company A) expiration in Nov 2007. I got a denial notice for my H1B on Nov 13 2007. My attorney missed the appeal date so no appeal has been filed for the H1B denial.
Here are my questions:
- Am I currently out of status since my I-94 expired in Nov 2007?
- If I am not out of status, what is the next course of action I should be taking?
- Will there be any issues when i try to renew my EAD?
Thank you in advance for your advice.
Blog Feeds
02-05 06:40 PM
I am a strong supporter of Comprehensive Immigraton Reform (CIR). I have been on both sides of the fence. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, I was an attorney for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. I spent a couple of years representing the government in deportation proceedings, often conducted in Federal prisons. Are there people in the U.S. who should be deported? Absolutely! I have no regrets. But even while serving as an INS Attorney, I fully realized that the man that I deported on Friday afternoon would be back in the U.S., working at his job to feed...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/01/cir-you-cant-always-get-what-you-want-when-you-want-it.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/01/cir-you-cant-always-get-what-you-want-when-you-want-it.html)
manuseeksgc
10-15 09:31 PM
I e-filed on sep 15th at TSC..still waiting.
No comments:
Post a Comment