jackrabbit
03-27 11:34 AM
If I resign, If my employer cancels my I-140 and use that labor and PD for another person within next 3 months. Can I still use the same priority date if I reach to the I-140 stage in the next 9 months at the new employer?
I have a nice offer from a reputed company but am worried that my current employer (small-time consulting company) would revoke 140 for the purpose of substituting it...Otherwise they have no problem with me but then it is a business for them.
I asked them if it is not illegal/immoral to do that. Their reply was that it is illegal only to sell it and not if it is given away as a favor and they seem to have folks waiting on the sidelines...
I am waiting for that law to ban it but it does not seem to happen...
* Moving question to new thread since the question got buried by subsequent posts
TIA!
I have a nice offer from a reputed company but am worried that my current employer (small-time consulting company) would revoke 140 for the purpose of substituting it...Otherwise they have no problem with me but then it is a business for them.
I asked them if it is not illegal/immoral to do that. Their reply was that it is illegal only to sell it and not if it is given away as a favor and they seem to have folks waiting on the sidelines...
I am waiting for that law to ban it but it does not seem to happen...
* Moving question to new thread since the question got buried by subsequent posts
TIA!
wallpaper North Korean flag pole
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
muthiahmerchant
06-26 09:50 AM
I am thinking of applying for 485 right now, and 5 months later for my wife. Do the dates have to current when I apply for my wife. or it does not matter. Has any one done this where they applied for 485 when dates were current but for spouse at a latter date when the dates were backlogged again.
thanks
thanks
2011 Tags: North north korea flag.
Karthikthiru
07-18 10:51 AM
New Service Center Processing Time Report is just published
Karthik
Karthik
more...
anonimo
05-05 10:00 PM
Hello, I apologyze for not giving my name away first of all, secondly I need to know what my options are if my father and mother who are permanent residents in the USA can file an I-130 for me? They obtained their legal status thru the department of labor but at the time they were approved I was already 21 years of age (the whole process started in 2000and lasted for 5 years or so); one lawyer told me that I cannot do anything since I was over 21 but I just have been in a different lawyer who told me that yes I can adjust my status thank to a grandfather law that can help me to achieve my goal in working legally in this country. I am an unmarried daughter and 27 years of age at this time.
I just don't want to spend those $5,500 can this lawyer is asking me for his services, I appreciate very much your replies and my family will too
Again, thank you
I just don't want to spend those $5,500 can this lawyer is asking me for his services, I appreciate very much your replies and my family will too
Again, thank you
h1xfer485
01-29 01:00 PM
Can we pursue to have an amendment like SKIL bill or something in Economy stimulus bill? The amendment can be relevant to economy stimulus since it will give competitive advantage to america thereby stimulating the economy. (Something like AC21 made into law in 2000 to increase american competitiveness to stimulate economy)
Also, this way, there is a chance that legal immigration issues will be discussed separately from illegal immigration issues.
The economy stimulus bill is being currently discussed in House and soon will be in Senate where lot of amendments will be voted on. The bill seems to have bi-partisan support as well. We can hope this will be one more amendment to the bill!
Also, this way, there is a chance that legal immigration issues will be discussed separately from illegal immigration issues.
The economy stimulus bill is being currently discussed in House and soon will be in Senate where lot of amendments will be voted on. The bill seems to have bi-partisan support as well. We can hope this will be one more amendment to the bill!
more...
pan123
08-30 06:29 PM
When did you filed? From what service center? When was last finger print done? and what's your priority date?
2010 A North Korean flag flutters
wandmaker
12-24 09:50 PM
I got H1 this year. I was applied my ssn on oct 9 th. still i didn't get my ssn number. two days back ssn people called and told that "in online it is showing your EAd card. so we can give u ssn if you bring the EAD card". My question is if i give my EAD, will the h1 get cancelled. please suggest me.
Dont worry, showing EAD to SSA office will not cancel or invalid your H1B. Goto SSA office and tell them you have both H1B as well as EAD.
Dont worry, showing EAD to SSA office will not cancel or invalid your H1B. Goto SSA office and tell them you have both H1B as well as EAD.
more...
fromnaija
12-02 12:51 PM
I think everybody is battle-weary!
But there is another battle ahead - whenever CIR is tabled.
But there is another battle ahead - whenever CIR is tabled.
hair 30 Flag Pole in North Korea by
srox
03-03 08:59 PM
Hi all...
i'm Srox from malaysia...n this is myself , sketches in 10 minutes using wacom :)
http://img.skitch.com/20090304-8t1fcc56mnpjd31gwce7js27q2.jpg
Happy voting!
i'm Srox from malaysia...n this is myself , sketches in 10 minutes using wacom :)
http://img.skitch.com/20090304-8t1fcc56mnpjd31gwce7js27q2.jpg
Happy voting!
more...
ashkam
03-06 10:16 AM
Yes.
hot North Korean Flag on the
agrisiva
10-26 03:57 PM
Dear Attorney,
I work for a non-profit State University (6+ years), and my supervisor is letting me work from Canada for a year or so. As my university HR needs to have an H1B permit to keep me on the payroll, my University's International Officer is willing to keep my permit valid and keep renewing it even beyond 6 years as my I-140 is approved. She says that I can also apply for an H1B visa in Canada and visit US whenever my supervisor asks me to do so.
Wondering if this is doable without violating the USCIS & LCA rules and regulations? Thanks.
I work for a non-profit State University (6+ years), and my supervisor is letting me work from Canada for a year or so. As my university HR needs to have an H1B permit to keep me on the payroll, my University's International Officer is willing to keep my permit valid and keep renewing it even beyond 6 years as my I-140 is approved. She says that I can also apply for an H1B visa in Canada and visit US whenever my supervisor asks me to do so.
Wondering if this is doable without violating the USCIS & LCA rules and regulations? Thanks.
more...
house North Korean Flag Pole
NANO3
11-10 09:59 PM
nice background image !
text is weak make it bold or something
text is weak make it bold or something
tattoo The North Korean propaganda
Edison99
01-18 09:21 AM
Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best...
There are some positive signs over the last few days but I'm not sure I'd be as optimistic as Stewart Lawrence, but he's made some interesting observations.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/01/gop-moving-back-to-center-on-immigration.html)
There are some positive signs over the last few days but I'm not sure I'd be as optimistic as Stewart Lawrence, but he's made some interesting observations.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/01/gop-moving-back-to-center-on-immigration.html)
more...
pictures of the North Korean flag
kalkix
08-10 02:12 PM
Hi guys,
I am adding my wife's AOS application to my own pending AOS application. Because of whatever reasons we couldn't file our apps together earlier.
I notice that I need to give my wife's Alien registration no (ARN) at a couple of places in the application package, such as in the I-485 form, G-325A form, and at the back of the photographs.
Needless to say, my wife does not have an ARN. I was allocated an ARN when my I-140 got approved. Since she is just a derivative beneficiary, she does not have an ARN yet.
So what should I do about these columns in the form. Should I leave them blank, or should I fill them up with my own ARN.
Please help
Thanks
K
I am adding my wife's AOS application to my own pending AOS application. Because of whatever reasons we couldn't file our apps together earlier.
I notice that I need to give my wife's Alien registration no (ARN) at a couple of places in the application package, such as in the I-485 form, G-325A form, and at the back of the photographs.
Needless to say, my wife does not have an ARN. I was allocated an ARN when my I-140 got approved. Since she is just a derivative beneficiary, she does not have an ARN yet.
So what should I do about these columns in the form. Should I leave them blank, or should I fill them up with my own ARN.
Please help
Thanks
K
dresses stock photo : 3D North-Korean
mrdelhiite
02-26 11:34 AM
yes if u do a h1 transfer (and invoke AC21)..
-M
-M
more...
makeup Grunge North Korea Flag Vector
raviram1980
03-13 12:14 AM
Hi All,
I went for visa interview in December, but my case was stuck because of administrative processing. I came back on Advance parole. I have the following questions.
1. Can I sponsor my parents visitor visa without any issue? Will the consulate quiz them/stop them because of my H-1 admin processing
2. Also is my admin processing still going on? and can I stamp my H-1 visa in the future after my case is cleared from admin processing.
Thanks in advance
I went for visa interview in December, but my case was stuck because of administrative processing. I came back on Advance parole. I have the following questions.
1. Can I sponsor my parents visitor visa without any issue? Will the consulate quiz them/stop them because of my H-1 admin processing
2. Also is my admin processing still going on? and can I stamp my H-1 visa in the future after my case is cleared from admin processing.
Thanks in advance
girlfriend tattoo the North Korean flag
Blog Feeds
08-06 08:20 PM
Well this came out of nowhere. Last night the Senate passed an emergency border enforcement bill that provides $600 million for increased security on the southern US border. The $600 million will come from raising fees on staffing companies. The fee will increase by $2250 for each L-1 visa application for companies that employ 50 or more workers if 50% of the workforce is on an H-1B or an L-1. The fee will increase by $2000 for each H-1B application for companies with 50 or more workers with 50% or more in L-1 or H-1B status.That means L-1 fees will...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/senate-border-budget-bill-pays-for-enforcement-with-new-h1b-and-l1-fees.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/senate-border-budget-bill-pays-for-enforcement-with-new-h1b-and-l1-fees.html)
hairstyles 2010 North Korea Flag Pole
chrisclick
08-22 08:46 AM
Nice. Like the last one :)
pointlesswait
12-10 12:27 PM
how long does it take for USCIS to issue a receipt date..for 140's???
my attorney had said she sent the docs around nov 20.. should i not have received the date/notice by now?:confused:
my attorney had said she sent the docs around nov 20.. should i not have received the date/notice by now?:confused:
omega
06-25 02:18 PM
I am panning to file I 485 before July 31st. Also I am planning to go on vacation to India around Aug 10th. The trip to India is unavoidable.
Experts please answer the following question:
1) Both me and my wife are on H1 and it has to be stamped. Will I 485 Filing have any adverse impact on the H1 Stamping ?
2) Will leaving the country for vacation without the I 485 receipt have any impact on the I 485 process.
Thanks
Omega
Experts please answer the following question:
1) Both me and my wife are on H1 and it has to be stamped. Will I 485 Filing have any adverse impact on the H1 Stamping ?
2) Will leaving the country for vacation without the I 485 receipt have any impact on the I 485 process.
Thanks
Omega
No comments:
Post a Comment