dhiru
08-03 03:16 PM
I have similar issue, I have applied for the EAD renewal on May 18th and received the notice on May 24th. My EAD is expiring on August 18th, and still have not heard back from USCIS. I have called the USCIS on July 26th and opened a service request, but it got rejected asking me to wait for 90 business days. What are my options ?
a. Can I still keep working?
b. Should I quit my job?
c. Can I take unpaid vacation?
Please help...
Thnx.
a. Can I still keep working?
b. Should I quit my job?
c. Can I take unpaid vacation?
Please help...
Thnx.
tiger print tattoo designs. Print Tiger Tattoo Art designs
webm
10-23 10:40 AM
There is a chance that i might get laid off. I have a pending I485 filed on July 2. My I-140 was approved in June 06. Would like to know if i get laid off within how many days do i have to find a job.
really need to know this based on the market situation.
ASAP if you can and before the termination expected to happen.
User Search in this forum there are lots of threads on the same topic.
really need to know this based on the market situation.
ASAP if you can and before the termination expected to happen.
User Search in this forum there are lots of threads on the same topic.
tiger print tattoo designs. Print Tiger Lily Flower
skumar9
04-13 11:07 AM
My date is also not Current(Eb3 2006 ) got RFE today requesting The TB test. Think they opened the case and working. :)
tiger print tattoo designs. Print Tiger Tattoos Small
apb
09-14 06:52 PM
I missed out on this one...
more...
tiger print tattoo designs. Print Chinese Tiger Tattoo 1
MahaBharatGC
09-09 06:22 AM
I believe it is safer to wait for AP to come through. Other option would be to file for H4 however you must have H1B for that I believe. It is always safer to file for H1B and H4 in parallel with EAD/AP as per my lawyer to be useful in these type of circumstances.
tiger print tattoo designs. Print Paper Tiger Tattoo Pics
need4gc
08-15 01:50 PM
Congrats.Can you share who signed your packet and what time it reached NSC? I am just curious whether i will have any luck..to get the RN in next couple of days.
It was signed by R William at 9:30 AM on 07/03/2007.
It was signed by R William at 9:30 AM on 07/03/2007.
more...
tiger print tattoo designs. Chinese Zodiac Tiger Tattoo 2
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
tiger print tattoo designs. Print Butterfly With Tiger
Img
10-18 10:34 AM
Guys, I dont see any provision to contribute one time $50. Is there any way I can do it ?
Thanks
RK
Thanks
RK
more...
tiger print tattoo designs. Paw Print Tattoo Designs
immi2006
05-24 10:30 AM
Recently in a IIT meet and IISC meet we came across a huge number of folks in EB2 on GC wait., I was told their numbers exceed 1000 plus through the internal IIT network.. so if they consume X number just in Bay area, what about rest of US. Live happily while you are here, enjoy the weather and do not pin hopes on US. Think that you were fortunate to come here in prime of youth and learnt a thing or two..
Honestly how many points we score really does not matter if the visa country cap is too low. Most of us, coming from India, China etc. score almost the same points and getting TOEFL is a piece of cake if you need to improve your points.
It's pointless to break our heads calculating these points, everything is in limbo right now and the only best advise for new GC aspirants especially those coming from retrogressed countries is locking the priority date by applying LC under the old system.
Honestly how many points we score really does not matter if the visa country cap is too low. Most of us, coming from India, China etc. score almost the same points and getting TOEFL is a piece of cake if you need to improve your points.
It's pointless to break our heads calculating these points, everything is in limbo right now and the only best advise for new GC aspirants especially those coming from retrogressed countries is locking the priority date by applying LC under the old system.
tiger print tattoo designs. Print Tiger Lily Flower
maverick13
04-19 07:18 PM
My H1B was filed with job title "RF Engineer" which comes under "Electrical Engineering" in 2004. My first 3-year term on H1 expires this year end and employer needs to file for renewal for next 3-year term.
My LC as well as 140 were applied and are approved for the position of "Electronics Engineer" which is my current position.
Essentially Electronics Engineer position is a superset of RF Engineer/Electrical Engineer positions, job duties are pretty much the same.
So now when I apply for my H1B renewal/extension does employer have to write the current position (Electronics engr) or the position on which H1B was filed first (RF engr)?
Any inputs appeciated...
My LC as well as 140 were applied and are approved for the position of "Electronics Engineer" which is my current position.
Essentially Electronics Engineer position is a superset of RF Engineer/Electrical Engineer positions, job duties are pretty much the same.
So now when I apply for my H1B renewal/extension does employer have to write the current position (Electronics engr) or the position on which H1B was filed first (RF engr)?
Any inputs appeciated...
more...
tiger print tattoo designs. Print Tiger Tattoo Sleeves
chanduv23
10-09 05:34 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
tiger print tattoo designs. Print Tiger Balm Tattoo
nixstor
08-30 12:59 PM
perm2gc,
Southwest, JetBlue, Airtran who are low fare carriers might have stopped doing that. A friend of mine flew on his in-laws frequent flier miles on Southwest a couple of years back. I am not sure what their policy is currently. I know Big airlines like American, United allow to transfer miles for charges varying between 5 to 25 dollars depending on the number of days left for travel. Also, not all seats are available for award travel on a given flight. It varies from the frequent flyer's status ( General, Premier, 1K ) what ever. I am sure the core people are looking into these considertations.
Southwest, JetBlue, Airtran who are low fare carriers might have stopped doing that. A friend of mine flew on his in-laws frequent flier miles on Southwest a couple of years back. I am not sure what their policy is currently. I know Big airlines like American, United allow to transfer miles for charges varying between 5 to 25 dollars depending on the number of days left for travel. Also, not all seats are available for award travel on a given flight. It varies from the frequent flyer's status ( General, Premier, 1K ) what ever. I am sure the core people are looking into these considertations.
more...
tiger print tattoo designs. Print Butterfly Tattoo With
GC_1000Watt
12-15 11:42 AM
Answers in Red Ink Below....
Thanks a lot for your reply. I really appreciate if you can aswer the following:
Can I transfer my H1B to another company (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/#) once my old employer has appealed the H1B denail notice?
Nope. Your old H1 has already expired. So it has to be altogether a new H1 B application even though the old one is in appeal.
if the appeal on denial goes in my favor then whether I am going to get extension with I-94 or without I94?
I don't know the answer to this. According to my knowledge, once you apply for new H1 B & its approved, the old one is of no use even though the the appeal is in your favor. But its better check with the lawyer on this & if you get the answer to this one, pls. do let me know too.
Again, I am not a lawyer. All the above answers are based on personal experience. All The best ....
Thanks again. I will let you know but I believe since the old I-94 is already expired the extension will be given without I-94.
Also do you know if the same company (which has filed for my H1B extension and got denial) can file new H1B for me?
Thanks a lot for your reply. I really appreciate if you can aswer the following:
Can I transfer my H1B to another company (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/#) once my old employer has appealed the H1B denail notice?
Nope. Your old H1 has already expired. So it has to be altogether a new H1 B application even though the old one is in appeal.
if the appeal on denial goes in my favor then whether I am going to get extension with I-94 or without I94?
I don't know the answer to this. According to my knowledge, once you apply for new H1 B & its approved, the old one is of no use even though the the appeal is in your favor. But its better check with the lawyer on this & if you get the answer to this one, pls. do let me know too.
Again, I am not a lawyer. All the above answers are based on personal experience. All The best ....
Thanks again. I will let you know but I believe since the old I-94 is already expired the extension will be given without I-94.
Also do you know if the same company (which has filed for my H1B extension and got denial) can file new H1B for me?
tiger print tattoo designs. Print Chinese Tattoo Tiger 1
ivuser9
03-28 07:42 PM
Thank you all for their replies, this helped
more...
tiger print tattoo designs. Print Colored Tiger Tattoos 1
kannan
01-10 05:27 PM
Mine is still in CA only.no transfer and no FP
tiger print tattoo designs. dog paw print tattoos | paw
legal_la
07-12 12:11 PM
I think it is true that once you are counted in the cap you will not be counted again. so you can switch back and forth H4 and H1 without being counted in the quota.
more...
tiger print tattoo designs. Print Butterfly With Tiger
akred
03-26 12:45 AM
My information is 12 years old, but something you might want to check into. Back then Emirates would put you up in a downtown hotel if you wanted to break your journey. And you didn't have to get a Dubai visa if you were staying less than 24 hours.
tiger print tattoo designs. Print Tiger Tatto 1 designs
h1techSlave
04-21 09:31 PM
DL is essentially controlled by individual states. In MD they just give you 5 years irrespective of the visa expiry date. Only thing is that you need to have I-94/EAD + a visa (expired is fine). I have recently extended my MD drivers license thru mail.
In VA, I heard they would give only until the expiry of the EAD/H1B.
In VA, I heard they would give only until the expiry of the EAD/H1B.
tiger print tattoo designs. Print Tiger Lily + Fairy
eilsoe
10-03 01:25 PM
Allright....
SPAM*MATH.ACOS(POW(INFINITY,INFINITY))/2*3+SIN(INFINITY+1)
::::eerie laughing is heard briefly, then a loud choking sound::::
::::mistyfying silence covers the land::::
SPAM*MATH.ACOS(POW(INFINITY,INFINITY))/2*3+SIN(INFINITY+1)
::::eerie laughing is heard briefly, then a loud choking sound::::
::::mistyfying silence covers the land::::
karthikgk
02-19 07:01 PM
Thanks guys for making the effort to understand my situation.
i now need a couple of clarifications:
pune_guy, you are spot on in your interpretation that it would be a hard sell for an EB-2 application with the current employer.
So now, if I do change a job, I would have to use my EAD and hence I would have to join as an engineer(Because my understanding is, even though my current role is Business Development, my GC application is for an Engineer role and hence any new job based on EAD would have to be that of an Engineer).
Is that understanding correct?
Further, the new Eb-2 application from my would-be employer would be for an Engineer position.
Are my assumptions correct?
Thanks much
i now need a couple of clarifications:
pune_guy, you are spot on in your interpretation that it would be a hard sell for an EB-2 application with the current employer.
So now, if I do change a job, I would have to use my EAD and hence I would have to join as an engineer(Because my understanding is, even though my current role is Business Development, my GC application is for an Engineer role and hence any new job based on EAD would have to be that of an Engineer).
Is that understanding correct?
Further, the new Eb-2 application from my would-be employer would be for an Engineer position.
Are my assumptions correct?
Thanks much
widad2020
07-17 04:58 PM
D. JULY EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISA AVAILABILITY
After consulting with Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Visa Office advises readers that Visa Bulletin #107 (dated June 12) should be relied upon as the current July Visa Bulletin for purposes of determining Employment visa number availability, and that Visa Bulletin #108 (dated July 2) is hereby withdrawn.
This is what I am seeing in Aug bulletin.Does this mean are July dates current.Pls help
After consulting with Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Visa Office advises readers that Visa Bulletin #107 (dated June 12) should be relied upon as the current July Visa Bulletin for purposes of determining Employment visa number availability, and that Visa Bulletin #108 (dated July 2) is hereby withdrawn.
This is what I am seeing in Aug bulletin.Does this mean are July dates current.Pls help
