newbie2020
03-16 05:58 PM
We have seen so much of visa retrogression all along.....I was thinking of the July fiasco...after effects....Just when i was thinking of How DOS advances the dates. It is really erratic...since they have no clue on the number of pending applications. While they want to advance the dates faster when they know USCIS will not be consuming all the 140K quota so they can have their overseas consulates process some of them in July it turned completely different More people opted for AOS v/s CP.... Wouldn't it make sense for them to have 2 different cutoff dates ?? 1 for USCIS and 2 for Overseas consulates . How will this help ? They can advance the dates more accurately. How does that affect the people already in USCIS queue...They can either choose to change AOS to CP. and since the dates are different on CP (better than that of AOS) this will make new people file more CP than AOS while a number of folks in uscis queue to move the CP route and hence relieve the pressure on USCIS. There will certainly be some disadvantages No EAD/AP etc when one goes the CP route v/s AOS but the wait will be minimal....
Again just a thought....
Again just a thought....
wallpaper Mariah loves shirtless
shernil_s
04-27 03:32 PM
Hello Friends,
I am in 7th yr of my H1B and I have got 3 yrs extension on my H1B after
completing my 6 yrs. I have got my labour appliation and I-140 approved 1 year back and filed my I-485 in MAR'2005. My PD is Jan 2002, India EB3.
In SEP'2005, I got married and my spouse came to this country on H4 Visa.
Because of retrogresion.I couldn't file I-485 for my wife. Now I am waiting for my PD to get current to file 485 for my wife.
My question is, Can I change my employer by doing H1B Transfer. So that my
spouse wont be losing H4 Status. Also, when my PD becomes current can I ask my new employer to file 485 application for my spouse.
My lawyer has told me that filing Spouse's 485 has to be done with the same
employer who filed your application. Is it true? or Can I change my employer.
Thanks for your reply in advance
I am in 7th yr of my H1B and I have got 3 yrs extension on my H1B after
completing my 6 yrs. I have got my labour appliation and I-140 approved 1 year back and filed my I-485 in MAR'2005. My PD is Jan 2002, India EB3.
In SEP'2005, I got married and my spouse came to this country on H4 Visa.
Because of retrogresion.I couldn't file I-485 for my wife. Now I am waiting for my PD to get current to file 485 for my wife.
My question is, Can I change my employer by doing H1B Transfer. So that my
spouse wont be losing H4 Status. Also, when my PD becomes current can I ask my new employer to file 485 application for my spouse.
My lawyer has told me that filing Spouse's 485 has to be done with the same
employer who filed your application. Is it true? or Can I change my employer.
Thanks for your reply in advance
Blog Feeds
06-24 01:20 PM
Immigration Lawyers Blog Has Just Posted the Following:
On April 15, 2010, the Department of Homeland Security issued the USCIS �Annual Report on Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B) for Fiscal Year 2009.� The summary reports on information including the countries of origin, occupations, education levels, and compensation paid to those who had approved H-1B petitions in FY 2009. The report includes the following facts: approximately 48 percent of all H-1B approved workers were born in India; 41 percent were for workers in computer-related occupations; and 41 percent were for workers with a bachelor�s degree and 40 percent had a master�s degree. To view the annual report, see http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/H-1B/h1b-fy-09-characteristics.pdf.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~4/NFGPaxGwc6c
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~3/NFGPaxGwc6c/uscis_annual_report_on_h-1b_workers.html)
On April 15, 2010, the Department of Homeland Security issued the USCIS �Annual Report on Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B) for Fiscal Year 2009.� The summary reports on information including the countries of origin, occupations, education levels, and compensation paid to those who had approved H-1B petitions in FY 2009. The report includes the following facts: approximately 48 percent of all H-1B approved workers were born in India; 41 percent were for workers in computer-related occupations; and 41 percent were for workers with a bachelor�s degree and 40 percent had a master�s degree. To view the annual report, see http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/H-1B/h1b-fy-09-characteristics.pdf.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~4/NFGPaxGwc6c
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~3/NFGPaxGwc6c/uscis_annual_report_on_h-1b_workers.html)
2011 Blake Lively knows Ryan
liberty
01-13 05:53 PM
I have not got any update from expert. Could you please take a look?
more...
coollife
03-03 09:18 PM
I have my H1 filed in 2008. Due to the market situation, I didn't go for H1 stamping and entered US in March 2009 on H4.
I would like to know the steps/process for H4 -> H1 COS.
I know my employer is the best person to answer this. But, the problem is whenever I ask any details, he always tries to abstract the info.
If there are sequence of steps, after which step one is authorized to work? I tried getting the info online, but couldn't . If any of you can give me a pointer or explain the process in detail, it would be very great and helpful.
As per my employer, I can start working in 2 weeks after he initiates the process. I want to make sure that I don't run into any legal issues. Once the employer has initiated the COS process, is there a way one can track the status and also to verify the status after the completion of the process.
Sorry for too many questions. But, please please do help!!!
Thanks a ton in advance!!
I would like to know the steps/process for H4 -> H1 COS.
I know my employer is the best person to answer this. But, the problem is whenever I ask any details, he always tries to abstract the info.
If there are sequence of steps, after which step one is authorized to work? I tried getting the info online, but couldn't . If any of you can give me a pointer or explain the process in detail, it would be very great and helpful.
As per my employer, I can start working in 2 weeks after he initiates the process. I want to make sure that I don't run into any legal issues. Once the employer has initiated the COS process, is there a way one can track the status and also to verify the status after the completion of the process.
Sorry for too many questions. But, please please do help!!!
Thanks a ton in advance!!
chanduv23
11-26 09:17 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
more...
success_me1
05-03 10:05 AM
Hi,
My husband was had complete his MS from US and moved to H1 , recently went to India for and his H1 visa is rejected. I am on L1 so now he got his L2 visa approved.
I wish to know the following -
In order to start working as soon as possible what all options he has.
I long will L2 EAD will take?
Can he switch back to is orginal H1 once he come back to US? or he has to apply new H1.
Can he apply for both H1 and EAD. If so which one will be taken in to consideration if both are approved?
Please give you expert advice on what to do next.
Thanks
AM.
My husband was had complete his MS from US and moved to H1 , recently went to India for and his H1 visa is rejected. I am on L1 so now he got his L2 visa approved.
I wish to know the following -
In order to start working as soon as possible what all options he has.
I long will L2 EAD will take?
Can he switch back to is orginal H1 once he come back to US? or he has to apply new H1.
Can he apply for both H1 and EAD. If so which one will be taken in to consideration if both are approved?
Please give you expert advice on what to do next.
Thanks
AM.
2010 Ryan Reynolds — shirtless,
amslonewolf
04-30 08:14 PM
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119913.html
more...
Macaca
07-22 05:33 PM
For Real Drama, Senate Should Engage In a True Filibuster (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_8/ornstein/19415-1.html) By Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute, July 18, 2007
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
hair 2011 ryan reynolds shirtless
sanjaymk
07-18 09:54 PM
Dear friends,
My post regarding calling up the members after registration has apparently disturbed some members, first let me apologize for that and for some postings regarding that matter. The calling option was ONLY intended to ward of unwanted and vicious members using this forum to work against our goals.
I understand that a lot of non-indians are in this forum(for instance, Greg Siskind quotes from these forums a lot), and my post could be interpreted as being against non-indians, but it was not the intention.
I am sorry once again.
Thanks,
Sanjay.
My post regarding calling up the members after registration has apparently disturbed some members, first let me apologize for that and for some postings regarding that matter. The calling option was ONLY intended to ward of unwanted and vicious members using this forum to work against our goals.
I understand that a lot of non-indians are in this forum(for instance, Greg Siskind quotes from these forums a lot), and my post could be interpreted as being against non-indians, but it was not the intention.
I am sorry once again.
Thanks,
Sanjay.
more...
Blog Feeds
03-22 12:20 PM
Dick Armey, former Republican House Majority Leader and one of the national leaders of the Tea Party activists, had some surprising comments on immigration. From the Arizona Daily Star: Republicans are alienating Hispanic voters with their rhetoric on the immigration issue, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey said Monday. 'These guys are trying to blow it,' Armey, a Texas Republican who now works closely with Tea Party activists, said at a National Press Club luncheon. Armey, one of the creators of the 'Contract with America' that launched the 1994 Republican revolution, says the party needs to be more careful when...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/tea-party-leader-criticizes-antiimmigration-republicans.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/tea-party-leader-criticizes-antiimmigration-republicans.html)
hot Take ryan reynolds bodyjun
kanshul
02-03 07:45 AM
Are you employed by a US firm. My only concern is that if you apply from indian and are out of US for an extended period of time, USCIS may assume that you have abandoned your immigration intent.
more...
house Ryan Reynolds amp; Blake Lively
ragz4u
03-31 01:58 PM
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-03232006-630808.html
If you know anyone who has received backwages, please PM me.
If you know anyone who has received backwages, please PM me.
tattoo Photos: Ryan Reynolds in Green
FredG
May 14th, 2004, 05:27 PM
feedback is always welcome, with or without a rating.
more...
pictures Even though the Green Lantern
ianblackwel
08-05 12:15 AM
Also i would like to know how many days it would take for labor clearence through the perm process.
Would appreciate if you provide a detail answer for the said process. Thanks.
Would appreciate if you provide a detail answer for the said process. Thanks.
dresses ryan reynolds green lantern
lecter
January 20th, 2005, 09:39 PM
well they like it. Let's hope it gives Canon some price dropping competition!!!
Rob
Rob
more...
makeup Ryan Reynolds in Green Lantern
ISHM16
08-07 04:12 AM
I have H 1B VISA but never went to USA....
1) now if i want to go there... will there be any problem
2) if I want to apply for another VISA work or Tourist... will i get?
Thanks
Ish
1) now if i want to go there... will there be any problem
2) if I want to apply for another VISA work or Tourist... will i get?
Thanks
Ish
girlfriend of the “Green Lantern”
snathan
02-05 03:20 PM
Hello,
My I-140 was approved in August 2009 and my PD is Jan-2004 (EB3). I want to know when i can apply for I-485, should i have to wait till my PD becomes Current or is there any other way by which i can file the I-485. Please shed some light on this topic and thanks for your time and effort.
Thanks ! ! :confused: :rolleyes:
You need to wait for your PD become current...may be in 2019.
good luck.
My I-140 was approved in August 2009 and my PD is Jan-2004 (EB3). I want to know when i can apply for I-485, should i have to wait till my PD becomes Current or is there any other way by which i can file the I-485. Please shed some light on this topic and thanks for your time and effort.
Thanks ! ! :confused: :rolleyes:
You need to wait for your PD become current...may be in 2019.
good luck.
hairstyles blade, green lantern ryan
Blog Feeds
07-23 04:20 AM
The Governor has filed her response to the motion argued in court today to delay the implementation of Arizona's SB1070 law on July 24th. Reader USC has discussed some of the arguments in the comments. In short, Arizona is arguing that illegal immigration is costing the state serious money and delaying implementation will economically damage the state. Also, they argue that illegal immigrants are dangerous criminals and the citizens of Arizona are in grave danger each day this law is not implemented. Too bad the data doesn't back up either. On the crime issue, here are the facts. On the...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/arizona-files-brief-to-block-injunction.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/arizona-files-brief-to-block-injunction.html)
Lord Rahl
03-04 10:03 PM
This reminds me of the guy from office space for some reason or the guy from that other one.... what's it called.... the quiet guy I think?
Nice job.
Nice job.
patiently_waiting
04-16 05:42 AM
Hi.
My Wife is currently in H4 Visa and in US now. She has total of 11 years IT experience. She lastly worked with a Company X from May 2004 to May 2008 for about 4 years. Currently she is not an employee of Company X and also not working anywhere.
If the same Company X gives an US offer, Is it possible for the Company X to file L1 visa for her so that she can start working for that company immediately ? ( I have read in immigration forums that the L1 Visa Eligibility is that the person should have worked for that company for atleast 1 year within the last 3 years)
Experts, Can you pls give your opinion and suggestion on this ? If so, how long the process takes place for transfering from H4 to L1 visa ?
Thanks alot.
My Wife is currently in H4 Visa and in US now. She has total of 11 years IT experience. She lastly worked with a Company X from May 2004 to May 2008 for about 4 years. Currently she is not an employee of Company X and also not working anywhere.
If the same Company X gives an US offer, Is it possible for the Company X to file L1 visa for her so that she can start working for that company immediately ? ( I have read in immigration forums that the L1 Visa Eligibility is that the person should have worked for that company for atleast 1 year within the last 3 years)
Experts, Can you pls give your opinion and suggestion on this ? If so, how long the process takes place for transfering from H4 to L1 visa ?
Thanks alot.
No comments:
Post a Comment