andycool
01-27 07:13 AM
Can he add an amendment to divide spillover equally between EB2 and EB3 India. This will help a lot.
Even if its only for Phd's ....40,000 More Visas will be available for EB2 and EB3
i think EB2 Back log will be wiped away just in 1 year and fall down will be there for EB3.
Even if its only for Phd's ....40,000 More Visas will be available for EB2 and EB3
i think EB2 Back log will be wiped away just in 1 year and fall down will be there for EB3.
wallpaper Pink Floyd - Relics ( Deleted
![pink floyd pulse cd. PINK FLOYD - P.U.L.S.E [2 CD]](http://www.goglasi.com/img/4736577 "PINK FLOYD - P.U.L.S.E [2 CD]")
snathan
04-20 12:40 AM
Hi Guys,
I got the good news to share every one. got the approval . its wonderful
On 04/12/2009 it was denied and how come its approved on 04/18/2009. Are you kidding me
I got the good news to share every one. got the approval . its wonderful
On 04/12/2009 it was denied and how come its approved on 04/18/2009. Are you kidding me
lazycis
05-07 01:29 PM
Forget to mention that you can port to self-employment :)
2011 PINK FLOYD - P.U.L.S.E [2 CD]
crystal
02-02 10:27 AM
http://www.ice.gov/sevis/travel/faq_f2.htm#_Toc81222024
2.K. Can I travel outside the United States if I have a Form I-485 adjustment of status application pending?
No, not without advance permission. If you depart the United States with a pending I-485, you have abandoned your application unless you receive permission in advance from USCIS to return to the United States. This permission is called Advance Parole.
You may also be considered ineligible to return to the United States as an F-1 student, because your application to change status to that of a permanent resident is evidence of intent to immigrate which is inconsistent with nonimmigrant student status
2.K. Can I travel outside the United States if I have a Form I-485 adjustment of status application pending?
No, not without advance permission. If you depart the United States with a pending I-485, you have abandoned your application unless you receive permission in advance from USCIS to return to the United States. This permission is called Advance Parole.
You may also be considered ineligible to return to the United States as an F-1 student, because your application to change status to that of a permanent resident is evidence of intent to immigrate which is inconsistent with nonimmigrant student status
more...
tnite
09-30 02:21 PM
Can you please tell us what the RFE was about....Did you use AC21.
Me and my spouse both have RFE....so i dont know what to expect. And I have used AC21 and changed jobs....I am just hoping it is not related to this.
The RFE was for my I20's and OPT EAD card and Marriage certificate.
Me and my spouse both have RFE....so i dont know what to expect. And I have used AC21 and changed jobs....I am just hoping it is not related to this.
The RFE was for my I20's and OPT EAD card and Marriage certificate.
maverick_s39
01-20 11:11 AM
looking at the recent trend i am not so sure if dems are going to do anything on CIR anyway, MA senate race is more like a referendum to president and congress policies, if president or dems think otherwise they are making a huge mistake, time to push aside health care reform and concentrate on economy and jobs, any immigration reform bill in this economy is not going to happen, i hope they do something to revive the economy!
more...
cool_guy_onnet1
06-01 01:51 PM
unfortunately anything that says/reads no cap on h1 will be shot down as soon as it takes off...
Plus, H1B is debated and decided upon (pro-H1B's are quite happy as-is), EB has not been debated at all.
Plus, H1B is debated and decided upon (pro-H1B's are quite happy as-is), EB has not been debated at all.
2010 Pink Floyd - Pulse
ilikekilo
07-17 04:24 PM
opening new threads like this is annoying, I see lots of useless thread around here which discourages me to come to IV that often. He is asking update from CORE like they owe him, he must have paid his attorney and should attorney in such way not here. Whenever core has something to share they do share, no doubts.
i agree with you......dont demand..where have u been all these days coming today and asking IV for updated as they owe you...ofcourse bearing the fruits is not the only thing one can do they can contribute as well...will those new poeple who jpined in july will be willing to contribute to IV for fighting for our cuase GIBVE ME A BREAK
i agree with you......dont demand..where have u been all these days coming today and asking IV for updated as they owe you...ofcourse bearing the fruits is not the only thing one can do they can contribute as well...will those new poeple who jpined in july will be willing to contribute to IV for fighting for our cuase GIBVE ME A BREAK
more...
Imigrait
09-07 02:15 PM
ok........ After thinking about it for a while, I think I have the answer now.
What zephyrr is saying is that you should be able to show that your promotion is a new job in itself and it is significantly different from the job you were doing prior to your filing for Green Card, although it might be in the same company.
What zephyrr is saying is that you should be able to show that your promotion is a new job in itself and it is significantly different from the job you were doing prior to your filing for Green Card, although it might be in the same company.
hair Pink Floyd - A Collection Of
jthomas
06-11 01:26 PM
people say I support it as if they are in the congress committee and the moment they say "I support it", the idea become a bill and gets passed.
Writing letters, requesting the lawmakers for a 10 year EAD due to the retrogression would be a easy task for most of the IV members. This would create awareness and those who are afraid of meeting lawmakers would find a chance to do so. Once it create a momentum the group would be active to work on bigger issues.
Great, if this bill gets passed it gives confidence we can do something. our voice shows strength and then more members would contribute, work on more action items etc..
thats my thought. We have to constantly work on action plans under a good management leader.
J thomas
Writing letters, requesting the lawmakers for a 10 year EAD due to the retrogression would be a easy task for most of the IV members. This would create awareness and those who are afraid of meeting lawmakers would find a chance to do so. Once it create a momentum the group would be active to work on bigger issues.
Great, if this bill gets passed it gives confidence we can do something. our voice shows strength and then more members would contribute, work on more action items etc..
thats my thought. We have to constantly work on action plans under a good management leader.
J thomas
more...
gparr
May 23rd, 2005, 07:27 PM
Thanks to everyone for the feedback. All of it is very helpful and the kind of comments I hope to get for critiques.
Queen, Chris: Interesting that the white rock bothered you. It didn't me until I cloned it out. It was very distracting.
Bob: In #1 I focused on the dwarf Joshua tree in the foreground so everything beyond that should be in focus. I think the image suffers from compression and that's why the plantlife looks out of focus in the mid-ground. According to the lens, at f/10 everything beyond 3ft. should be in focus. I can see all of the individual branches in the full-sized image.
Nik: Not sure I understand what you mean about the polarizer. Didn't know I had that kind of control over the polarized light. Can you educate me?
Don, Josh, and rr3: My plan in #2 was to make the eye start at the yucca in the bottom right and flow through the image to the back left of the scene. In retrospect Don, you're right. It's too cramped. I only wish it was a crop, but it's full frame so I'm stuck with it. Josh, good point about something to balance the image. Not sure I could have done anything about it but I'll watch for a balancing element next time.
Queen: I included the path in #2 for that very reason. To get to the base of the rocks would have taken much more hiking time than I had. The next time I go to Vegas, I hope to have time to hike one of those trails and experience the rocks up close. The third image is not a crop. It's a different image shot with my 105mm macro. Wanted to show the color changes in the different rock levels. It is a portion of the second shot.
Brad: You're right. The timeframe at sunrise and sunset for excellent light is very short. Once that point is past, the light quickly becomes very harsh and seems to start bouncing all over the place. I have minimal experience shooting in such wide open spaces and with massive rock surfaces and found it very challenging both times I was there. The polarizer helped a lot this time, but much of doing these landscapes well seems to be knowing the area and timing and positioning.
Queen: I'd hire you in a heartbeat, but don't want you to have the misconception that business travel is pleasant. Getting to do a little shooting on the side is a small payback.
Gary
Queen, Chris: Interesting that the white rock bothered you. It didn't me until I cloned it out. It was very distracting.
Bob: In #1 I focused on the dwarf Joshua tree in the foreground so everything beyond that should be in focus. I think the image suffers from compression and that's why the plantlife looks out of focus in the mid-ground. According to the lens, at f/10 everything beyond 3ft. should be in focus. I can see all of the individual branches in the full-sized image.
Nik: Not sure I understand what you mean about the polarizer. Didn't know I had that kind of control over the polarized light. Can you educate me?
Don, Josh, and rr3: My plan in #2 was to make the eye start at the yucca in the bottom right and flow through the image to the back left of the scene. In retrospect Don, you're right. It's too cramped. I only wish it was a crop, but it's full frame so I'm stuck with it. Josh, good point about something to balance the image. Not sure I could have done anything about it but I'll watch for a balancing element next time.
Queen: I included the path in #2 for that very reason. To get to the base of the rocks would have taken much more hiking time than I had. The next time I go to Vegas, I hope to have time to hike one of those trails and experience the rocks up close. The third image is not a crop. It's a different image shot with my 105mm macro. Wanted to show the color changes in the different rock levels. It is a portion of the second shot.
Brad: You're right. The timeframe at sunrise and sunset for excellent light is very short. Once that point is past, the light quickly becomes very harsh and seems to start bouncing all over the place. I have minimal experience shooting in such wide open spaces and with massive rock surfaces and found it very challenging both times I was there. The polarizer helped a lot this time, but much of doing these landscapes well seems to be knowing the area and timing and positioning.
Queen: I'd hire you in a heartbeat, but don't want you to have the misconception that business travel is pleasant. Getting to do a little shooting on the side is a small payback.
Gary
hot Pink Floyd: Pulse Cd 180 bs
AgentM
06-03 06:20 PM
I don't have the I-140 application ? is it still a problem if I switch companies?
more...
house 1 CD | Release: 2003 | MP3
gcadream
02-24 01:33 PM
I'm due for my H1 visa extn as it is going to expire in Apr-2010 and my employer is going to do it anytime soon. I have heard that these days USICS is extending the H1 based on the project end date mentioned on Purchase Order, if that is the case then
[1] does it mean that we can get extn only for 6 months or so instead of 3 yrs [if your I-140 is approved]?
[2] And after six months do we again have to file for extn and pay all the fees again ?
Any help on this issue is highly appreciated.
Waiting to hear back from all of you.
[1] does it mean that we can get extn only for 6 months or so instead of 3 yrs [if your I-140 is approved]?
[2] And after six months do we again have to file for extn and pay all the fees again ?
Any help on this issue is highly appreciated.
Waiting to hear back from all of you.
tattoo released by Pink Floyd
raysaikat
04-21 12:00 PM
I am currently on my 9th year h1..my 140 is approved..and i am not a june 2007 filer..H1 valid till may 2010
My spouse is on H1..can i switch over H4..
> My company had not "officially" laid me off.. i am on an extended LOP.. and since there is no time limit of LOP on H1.. i am sure i cannot be on LOP for ever..;-)..its been 2 weeks..and i dont want to become illegal now..
so here is my dilemma::confused:
a.) If i switch to H4 and after few months i get a project..can i go back to H1..->
Yes. You might need to file a new H1-B petition though (I am not positive on that).
b.) Can i file for H4 on my own..is it complicated?
c.) if i change to H4..and my PD becomes current (PD Dec 2005)
.) Can i file for AOS..as my 140 is approved..
Yes.
.) Suppose i go back to desh ..can i file for consular processing..if my PD become current
Yes. You do need to file an application to change it into CP.
thank you!
Note however that you need to have a job offer to get the GC.
My spouse is on H1..can i switch over H4..
> My company had not "officially" laid me off.. i am on an extended LOP.. and since there is no time limit of LOP on H1.. i am sure i cannot be on LOP for ever..;-)..its been 2 weeks..and i dont want to become illegal now..
so here is my dilemma::confused:
a.) If i switch to H4 and after few months i get a project..can i go back to H1..->
Yes. You might need to file a new H1-B petition though (I am not positive on that).
b.) Can i file for H4 on my own..is it complicated?
c.) if i change to H4..and my PD becomes current (PD Dec 2005)
.) Can i file for AOS..as my 140 is approved..
Yes.
.) Suppose i go back to desh ..can i file for consular processing..if my PD become current
Yes. You do need to file an application to change it into CP.
thank you!
Note however that you need to have a job offer to get the GC.
more...
pictures PINK FLOYD-PULSE (DVD/2 DISC)
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
dresses Pink Floyd. Pulse (disc 1)
vxg
10-19 05:38 PM
For new investors starting with index funds, mutual funds is best. You can see good value in banking area funds like KBE,XLF or when NASDAQ plunges buy qqqq.
Considering the lowered cost of stock I am planning to gets my hands dirty in stock. But I don't have much knwoeldge about it. Also, by the time I find resouces to learn more about stock, the prices might ahve gone up.
So can anyone provide good online tools to know more about investing on stocks and buying stocks online...
Thanks
Considering the lowered cost of stock I am planning to gets my hands dirty in stock. But I don't have much knwoeldge about it. Also, by the time I find resouces to learn more about stock, the prices might ahve gone up.
So can anyone provide good online tools to know more about investing on stocks and buying stocks online...
Thanks
more...
makeup Pink Floyd - Pulse 320 KBPS
DallasBlue
07-17 12:15 AM
Depending upon the uscis announcement in a day or two (i.e,7/17 or 7/18)things may change for the short term so we will plan any specific action item after that.
But for now lets continue to urge everyone we know in Texas to join IV to continue pursuing our efforts as much intelligent, elite and vivid group for acheiving our goals and objectives.
Guys,
Just recently moved from Milwaukee, WI to Plano, TX (DFW) area. Just let me know what need to be done from my side. Awaiting eagerly.
- BharatPremi
But for now lets continue to urge everyone we know in Texas to join IV to continue pursuing our efforts as much intelligent, elite and vivid group for acheiving our goals and objectives.
Guys,
Just recently moved from Milwaukee, WI to Plano, TX (DFW) area. Just let me know what need to be done from my side. Awaiting eagerly.
- BharatPremi
girlfriend Pink FLoyd PULSE EMI PMCD 4914452 Video CD
h1vegas
10-07 12:30 PM
I got same audit in september as well
the guy came in to my desk and took pictures and i was asked to show my pay stubs
then they went to my hr and asked all questions
on being asked he said its the normal procedure
so no big deal , pls make sure if they coem to your office you should atleast have a copy of your paystubs
the guy came in to my desk and took pictures and i was asked to show my pay stubs
then they went to my hr and asked all questions
on being asked he said its the normal procedure
so no big deal , pls make sure if they coem to your office you should atleast have a copy of your paystubs
hairstyles Pink Floyd. Pulse (disc 1)
senthil
02-15 09:50 AM
why not - no one does things for free. if you talk to attorney, you know how much $$ you have to pay. most time ive seen members on form answer clean and quick based on their experiance, which is in-valuable.
$1 is just pennnies. not bad to start with at all
$1 is just pennnies. not bad to start with at all
ushkand
07-20 10:44 AM
I sent in form G-325 for both me and my wife along with my I-485 instead of the G-325A as required on I-485 instructions by oversight. What do you guys recommend I do? Should I send in a new application or just send in the G-325A form with a letter stating the issue? Please help.
saileshdude
09-04 11:37 AM
You can work on h1b - you will get H1b based on existing approved 140 and pending 485.
If 140 is revoked by employer you may get a RFE or NOID or in rare cases erroneous denial but you can continue on h1b while you respond to RFE or NOID oor through MTR to erroneous denial.
Sending AC21 docs does not necessarily mean you may not get NOID - AC21 docs seldom go into your file.
This is yet another inefficiency on their part. When it comes to AC21 your file does not even get updated even though you may have attached I-485 receipt along with AC21 filing. But when the employer revokes I-140 they don't forget to send you NOID or even I-485 denial.
If 140 is revoked by employer you may get a RFE or NOID or in rare cases erroneous denial but you can continue on h1b while you respond to RFE or NOID oor through MTR to erroneous denial.
Sending AC21 docs does not necessarily mean you may not get NOID - AC21 docs seldom go into your file.
This is yet another inefficiency on their part. When it comes to AC21 your file does not even get updated even though you may have attached I-485 receipt along with AC21 filing. But when the employer revokes I-140 they don't forget to send you NOID or even I-485 denial.
No comments:
Post a Comment