svam77
10-30 08:23 AM
My wife's finger printing fee was rejected last month even though we sent the correct fee. We sent the fee again.
But in the mean while, we also recieved our finger printing notices. Does anyone know as when we would get our EADs ?
Did this thing happen to u ?
But in the mean while, we also recieved our finger printing notices. Does anyone know as when we would get our EADs ?
Did this thing happen to u ?
wallpaper Island of the Blue Dolphins
crazyghoda
01-21 06:12 PM
Deleted.
ujjvalkoul
01-17 05:27 PM
I would think it is like a new job...and u are using AC21....so u shud be fine.
2011 Island of the Blue Dolphins
kumar1981
09-18 10:15 AM
Any inputs guyz!
more...
octoberbloom
01-09 12:37 PM
I e-filed on october 20th.
Got RFE and RFE recieved by USCIS on 3rd december. No news after that :mad:
Got RFE and RFE recieved by USCIS on 3rd december. No news after that :mad:
m306m
08-14 11:40 AM
Yes, that is accurate. You cannot convert from a Student Visa (F1 visa) to a Resident Visa (Green Card). The F1 visa is not a dual intent Visa. You have to have and H1B or L1 Visa to apply for a resident visa. Generally it is taking Chinese citizens who apply for residency in the employee based 3 or 2 categories. (EB3 or EB2) several years to get their GCs.
more...
GCVictim
06-28 01:21 PM
Hi,
My H1B is getting expire in Oct,2008.I am planning to extend my H1B. My wife came to US on H4 and converted to H1B (expiring on Sep-2009).
I applied I-485 Pending. Me and My wife got EAD and AP expiring Sep-25-2008. (Applied Renewal).Now My wife is working on EAD.
In my H1B ext. application, They are asking about my wife I-94 status. Which one should I give?. H4 (I-94) or Convert H1B (I-94) or EAD information.
Please advise me.
My H1B is getting expire in Oct,2008.I am planning to extend my H1B. My wife came to US on H4 and converted to H1B (expiring on Sep-2009).
I applied I-485 Pending. Me and My wife got EAD and AP expiring Sep-25-2008. (Applied Renewal).Now My wife is working on EAD.
In my H1B ext. application, They are asking about my wife I-94 status. Which one should I give?. H4 (I-94) or Convert H1B (I-94) or EAD information.
Please advise me.
2010 ISLAND OF THE BLUE DOLPHINS
dionysus
03-25 11:15 AM
I guess that should be OK. Only H1B rules require one to be continuously earning. On EAD, if you have a potential employer who is willing to hire you after your GC is approved, you can remain without regular paychecks.
I know of the guys, who actually availed unemployment benefits on EAD, and yet got their GCs. At least sitting without regular paychecks is better than that.
I know of the guys, who actually availed unemployment benefits on EAD, and yet got their GCs. At least sitting without regular paychecks is better than that.
more...
Blog Feeds
05-21 08:40 AM
I was listening to BBC News last night and heard an interview with a scientist described as one of the world's leading experts on climate change. That scientist is Indian-born Ram Ramanathan, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California in San Diego. He recently won the Tyler Prize which is awarded to the top environmental scientist in the world. UCSD describes Ramanathan: One of the world's leading atmospheric scientists, Ramanathan was the first to show that ozone-depleting aerosols could aggravate the greenhouse effect. In 1980, he correctly predicted that...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/immigrant-of-the-day-ram-ramanathan-client-scientist.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/immigrant-of-the-day-ram-ramanathan-client-scientist.html)
hair Island of the Blue Dolphins
cahimmihelp
07-12 01:18 PM
Hi,
I am working with a consulting company and my company filed for my GC in 2009 (PD is 25-Feb-2009). I received my I-140 approval on 28-Feb-2010. Now the client where I am working, has offered my a fulltime job and GC processing. I have received mutual consent from my current company for any legal issues. Now, if I join the new company and file my GC from there, can I port my Priority date for the new processing? Also, what should be the earliest joining date? What all other precautions should I take while filing GC with the new company?
I received the offer on 07/09 and have to give my decision by 07/15. I would appreciate if anyone can help.
Thanks a lot,
CAH
I am working with a consulting company and my company filed for my GC in 2009 (PD is 25-Feb-2009). I received my I-140 approval on 28-Feb-2010. Now the client where I am working, has offered my a fulltime job and GC processing. I have received mutual consent from my current company for any legal issues. Now, if I join the new company and file my GC from there, can I port my Priority date for the new processing? Also, what should be the earliest joining date? What all other precautions should I take while filing GC with the new company?
I received the offer on 07/09 and have to give my decision by 07/15. I would appreciate if anyone can help.
Thanks a lot,
CAH
more...
Kale
03-15 04:16 AM
this link is not working ..Do you have another ?
hot Explore Island of the Blue
Macaca
08-16 05:40 PM
Is the Senate Germane? Majority Leader Reid's Lament (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_19/procedural_politics/19719-1.html) By Don Wolfensberger | Roll Call, August 13, 2007
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
more...
house the Blue Dolphins by Scott
admin
03-02 10:37 AM
In case some of you are not able to figure it out, here it is
Please note that the purpose of our forums is to discuss our campaign and agenda. We want to foster a positive, constructive, discussion about our cause. Solutions for individual cases and problems, debates on the benefits of living in different countries etc. are better addressed on forums like Immigration Portal.
Posts that denigrate members, potential members or even anti-immigrant groups are not welcome - such posts are against Immigration Voice principles.
Please note that the purpose of our forums is to discuss our campaign and agenda. We want to foster a positive, constructive, discussion about our cause. Solutions for individual cases and problems, debates on the benefits of living in different countries etc. are better addressed on forums like Immigration Portal.
Posts that denigrate members, potential members or even anti-immigrant groups are not welcome - such posts are against Immigration Voice principles.
tattoo Island of the Blue Dolphins
swarnapuri
06-28 04:08 PM
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=161571&page=237&pp=15
more...
pictures island, with clear lue
STAmisha
08-13 08:58 PM
Can people convert LC pending in BEC to PERM? If So, how safe it is and how much time it takes totally.
dresses Island of the Blue Dolphins
Blog Feeds
03-31 12:40 PM
On March 19, 2010, the USCIS announced revised filing instructions and addresses for applicants filing an I-131, the Application for Travel Document.
Beginning March 19, 2010 applicants will have to file their applications at the USCIS Vermont Service Center or at one of the USCIS Lockbox facilities.
If you file the I-131 at the wrong location, the USCIS Service Centers will forward it to the USCIS Lockbox facilities for 30 days, until Monday, April 19, 2010. After April 19, 2010, incorrectly filed applications will be returned to the applicant, with a note to send the application to the correct location.
Here is a link to the new filing locations. (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=1d17aca797e63110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fe529c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
More... (http://www.philadelphiaimmigrationlawyerblog.com/2010/03/test_1.html)
Beginning March 19, 2010 applicants will have to file their applications at the USCIS Vermont Service Center or at one of the USCIS Lockbox facilities.
If you file the I-131 at the wrong location, the USCIS Service Centers will forward it to the USCIS Lockbox facilities for 30 days, until Monday, April 19, 2010. After April 19, 2010, incorrectly filed applications will be returned to the applicant, with a note to send the application to the correct location.
Here is a link to the new filing locations. (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=1d17aca797e63110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fe529c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
More... (http://www.philadelphiaimmigrationlawyerblog.com/2010/03/test_1.html)
more...
makeup Island Of The Blue Dolphins
iamcutewithu
01-03 02:22 AM
Hi,
I have been working with a company ABC from April 2007 in India. In Oct 2007 I got my H1B visa stamped for a company XYZ of USA and is valid thru OCT 2010. I took a long vacation here in India and went to USA for the company XYZ and stayed there for 45 days. During the period of stay I got my SSN and also I got one payslip generated for two weeks. Becoz of the market slowdown I had to return back to India and joined the same company ABC in India. Now this company ABC wants to process B1 for me, So is there any problem if I have to apply for B1 and is there any problem in the Embassy about the 45 days I spent in US on H1B while I was employed in a company ABC from April 2007?
Please suggest me on this asap
I have been working with a company ABC from April 2007 in India. In Oct 2007 I got my H1B visa stamped for a company XYZ of USA and is valid thru OCT 2010. I took a long vacation here in India and went to USA for the company XYZ and stayed there for 45 days. During the period of stay I got my SSN and also I got one payslip generated for two weeks. Becoz of the market slowdown I had to return back to India and joined the same company ABC in India. Now this company ABC wants to process B1 for me, So is there any problem if I have to apply for B1 and is there any problem in the Embassy about the 45 days I spent in US on H1B while I was employed in a company ABC from April 2007?
Please suggest me on this asap
girlfriend Island of the Blue Dolphins
Blog Feeds
01-04 01:00 PM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_HrmmM9Zhq1c/SzpitzsdL_I/AAAAAAAAAVY/onCuaJe2I7M/s200/Airport+security.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_HrmmM9Zhq1c/SzpitzsdL_I/AAAAAAAAAVY/onCuaJe2I7M/s1600-h/Airport+security.jpg)
The US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has issued guidance for people traveling after the attempted bombing of a plane on Christmas Day. TSA stresses that security measures are not the same in every airport, and this is deliberate so that people cannot anticipate how they will be screened. Details of the TSA guidance is here. (http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/dec25_guidance.shtm)
Photo thanks to http://www.flickr.com/photos/sixmilliondollardan/3382932556/
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-8843284490801751945?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-airport-security-measures-anounced.html)
The US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has issued guidance for people traveling after the attempted bombing of a plane on Christmas Day. TSA stresses that security measures are not the same in every airport, and this is deliberate so that people cannot anticipate how they will be screened. Details of the TSA guidance is here. (http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/dec25_guidance.shtm)
Photo thanks to http://www.flickr.com/photos/sixmilliondollardan/3382932556/
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-8843284490801751945?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-airport-security-measures-anounced.html)
hairstyles Tags: lue, dolphins, download
Blog Feeds
08-11 10:10 AM
H1B Visa Lawyer Blog Has Just Posted the Following:
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Processing Times were released with processing dates as of August 1, 2010.
If you filed an appeal, please review the links below to determine the applicable processing time associated with your particular case.
Administrative Appeals Office (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=32830)
The current processing time for an I-129 H-1B Appeal is 13 months. The current processing time for an I-140 EB2 Appeal for an Advanced Degree Professional is 24 months; for an I-140EB3 Appeal for a Skilled or Professional Worker is 25 months.
Most other cases are within USCIS's processing time goal of 6 months or less.
More... (http://www.h1bvisalawyerblog.com/2010/08/administrative_appeals_office_6.html)
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Processing Times were released with processing dates as of August 1, 2010.
If you filed an appeal, please review the links below to determine the applicable processing time associated with your particular case.
Administrative Appeals Office (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=32830)
The current processing time for an I-129 H-1B Appeal is 13 months. The current processing time for an I-140 EB2 Appeal for an Advanced Degree Professional is 24 months; for an I-140EB3 Appeal for a Skilled or Professional Worker is 25 months.
Most other cases are within USCIS's processing time goal of 6 months or less.
More... (http://www.h1bvisalawyerblog.com/2010/08/administrative_appeals_office_6.html)
Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
Just hours after the announcement that DHS will seek to rescind the controversial social security no-match rule, the Senate may consider an amendment to the DHS spending bill that has been introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-LA). Amendment 1375 would bar DHS from revoking the rule and require its implementation. The amendment language is as follows: Sec. 556. None of the amounts made available under this Act may be used to-- (1) amend, rewrite, or change the final rule requiring Federal Contractors to use E-Verify (promulgated on November 14, 2008); (2) further delay the implementation of the rule described in...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/senate-may-consider-bill-to-reimpose-nomatch-rule.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/senate-may-consider-bill-to-reimpose-nomatch-rule.html)
Blog Feeds
05-31 12:30 AM
Antis often say that as long as people play by the rules they don't have a problem with having a robust immigration system. But consider the Franks, a British couple awarded an E-2 visa ten years ago who have poured their savings and their blood, sweat and tears in to a restaurant that they were given permission to open and operate. The New York Times told their story today. In their latest extension, however, an anonymous USCIS examiner decided their restaurant in Maine was no longer up to snuff and ordered the couple to leave the country even though the...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/so-much-for-playing-by-the-rules.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/so-much-for-playing-by-the-rules.html)
No comments:
Post a Comment