vali
03-30 07:36 AM
I'm in the 8th year of H1-B, BEC priority date 04/2001, just got a notice that the case was closed ?? and the lawyer is working to reopen the case.
I have now a very good opportunity to work for another company, huge pay and benefits, a lot of pressure from this company to work for them.
Pls who can answer 2 small questions:
1. Do I have a chance to work for this company?
2. It makes a difference if I'm currently in NJ and this new company is in Utah - thinking that maybe they are not so many applicants in that state? Just for the LC processing speed?
Thanks a lot.
I have now a very good opportunity to work for another company, huge pay and benefits, a lot of pressure from this company to work for them.
Pls who can answer 2 small questions:
1. Do I have a chance to work for this company?
2. It makes a difference if I'm currently in NJ and this new company is in Utah - thinking that maybe they are not so many applicants in that state? Just for the LC processing speed?
Thanks a lot.
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
Student with no hopes
01-28 09:57 AM
what do you mean - going by I-140 dates?
Macaca
02-17 04:53 PM
Judiciary Committee (http://judiciary.senate.gov/)
Sub-committee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship (http://judiciary.senate.gov/subcommittees/110/immigration110.cfm)
Jurisdiction
Immigration, citizenship, and refugee laws
Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the immigration functions of the U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Directorate of Border and Transportation Security
Oversight of the immigration-related functions of the Department of Justice, the Department of State, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement, and the Department of Labor
Oversight of international migration and refugee laws and policy
Private immigration relief bills.
Democratic Members
Edward M. Kennedy (http://kennedy.senate.gov/), MA (Chair)
Joseph R. Biden, Jr (http://biden.senate.gov/)., DE
Dianne Feinstein (http://feinstein.senate.gov/), CA
Charles E. Schumer (http://schumer.senate.gov/), NY
Richard J. Durbin (http://durbin.senate.gov/), IL
Republican Members
John Cornyn (http://cornyn.senate.gov/), TX (Ranking Member)
Charles E. Grassley (http://grassley.senate.gov/), IA
Jon Kyl (http://kyl.senate.gov/), AZ
Jeff Sessions (http://sessions.senate.gov/), AL
Senior Staff
Bill Yeomans, Democratic Chief Counsel
Reed O'Connor, Republican Chief Counsel
Press Contact Information (http://judiciary.senate.gov/press.cfm)
Judiciary Committee Hearings (http://judiciary.senate.gov/schedule.cfm)
Comprehensive Immigration Reform (http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2555), February 28, 2007, 10:00 AM
Strengthening American Competitiveness for the 21st Century (http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2007_03_07/2007_03_07.html), March 7, 9:30 a.m
Written Testimony of William H. Gates (http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2007_03_07/Gates.pdf)
Sub-committee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship (http://judiciary.senate.gov/subcommittees/110/immigration110.cfm)
Jurisdiction
Immigration, citizenship, and refugee laws
Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the immigration functions of the U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Directorate of Border and Transportation Security
Oversight of the immigration-related functions of the Department of Justice, the Department of State, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement, and the Department of Labor
Oversight of international migration and refugee laws and policy
Private immigration relief bills.
Democratic Members
Edward M. Kennedy (http://kennedy.senate.gov/), MA (Chair)
Joseph R. Biden, Jr (http://biden.senate.gov/)., DE
Dianne Feinstein (http://feinstein.senate.gov/), CA
Charles E. Schumer (http://schumer.senate.gov/), NY
Richard J. Durbin (http://durbin.senate.gov/), IL
Republican Members
John Cornyn (http://cornyn.senate.gov/), TX (Ranking Member)
Charles E. Grassley (http://grassley.senate.gov/), IA
Jon Kyl (http://kyl.senate.gov/), AZ
Jeff Sessions (http://sessions.senate.gov/), AL
Senior Staff
Bill Yeomans, Democratic Chief Counsel
Reed O'Connor, Republican Chief Counsel
Press Contact Information (http://judiciary.senate.gov/press.cfm)
Judiciary Committee Hearings (http://judiciary.senate.gov/schedule.cfm)
Comprehensive Immigration Reform (http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2555), February 28, 2007, 10:00 AM
Strengthening American Competitiveness for the 21st Century (http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2007_03_07/2007_03_07.html), March 7, 9:30 a.m
Written Testimony of William H. Gates (http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2007_03_07/Gates.pdf)
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
doubleyou
09-29 03:44 PM
Does any body have an I485 that shows the PD date.
more...
Dhundhun
07-21 02:43 AM
Polling tracker can provide better idea, how much time it is taking to get AP form NSC
This is link to Polling tracker for EAD from NSC: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20361
This is link to Polling tracker for EAD from TSC: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20363
This is link to Polling tracker for AP from TSC: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20364
This is link to Polling tracker for EAD from NSC: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20361
This is link to Polling tracker for EAD from TSC: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20363
This is link to Polling tracker for AP from TSC: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20364
nvrao2104
07-02 07:04 PM
Hi,
Following is my visa status:
Working for company A on L1B visa which has expired and
1) L1 extension got approved from company A valid through Aug, 2010.
2) Also have Consular-H1B petition from same Company A valid till Aug, 2011.
No H1B visa stamp
Following are my questions:
1) I am sure, in my case i can transfer my H1B petition to company B with Consulor appointment. Needed confirmation
2) As soon as i get laid off from company A, can i immediately apply for H1B peition transfer to Company B with Change of Status (COS)? how much time i have before my L1 gets deactived?
Following is my visa status:
Working for company A on L1B visa which has expired and
1) L1 extension got approved from company A valid through Aug, 2010.
2) Also have Consular-H1B petition from same Company A valid till Aug, 2011.
No H1B visa stamp
Following are my questions:
1) I am sure, in my case i can transfer my H1B petition to company B with Consulor appointment. Needed confirmation
2) As soon as i get laid off from company A, can i immediately apply for H1B peition transfer to Company B with Change of Status (COS)? how much time i have before my L1 gets deactived?
more...
sampath
04-13 09:34 AM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4022
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
dilbert_cal
05-21 02:37 PM
Please do not create New threads for visa bulletin.
Please post your message in
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4285
Mods - please close this thread.
On a side note, it might be a good idea to call up and write to lawmakers even if your PD is close.
Please post your message in
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4285
Mods - please close this thread.
On a side note, it might be a good idea to call up and write to lawmakers even if your PD is close.
more...
gcformeornot
04-09 12:58 PM
I just read on other forums that no FP is required if EAD renewal is efiled. Only first time efile requires FP is this true?
So far twice I have paper filed EAD. Now its time for extension. If I e-file will I get FP??
So far twice I have paper filed EAD. Now its time for extension. If I e-file will I get FP??
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
biggest_apple
05-07 02:34 PM
Cool - thanks. I think it's the stronger of the two as well.
more...
Davis
05-19 01:51 AM
Hi,
I got H1-B petition (I-797) approved in 2008 but due to recession, I couldn't appear to consulate office. I did not get a chance to work in US for that employer so I don't have any pay stubs for that employer.
The petition is approved till 2011. And now I am planing to either appear for visa stamping or transfering I-797 to any other sponser.
My queries are -
A-Appearing for Visa stamping now after long time is right option or is there any chance of rejection?
B-Since My current employer is not able to employ me there,I want to transfer my I-797. Can It be possible? How much risk is there? If it can be done that what is the process of that please?
C-Since petition is valid till 2011, If I get stamped this year Oct / 2010 what will be duration of visa?
D-Any sponsrs list ?
Thanks,
~Davis
I got H1-B petition (I-797) approved in 2008 but due to recession, I couldn't appear to consulate office. I did not get a chance to work in US for that employer so I don't have any pay stubs for that employer.
The petition is approved till 2011. And now I am planing to either appear for visa stamping or transfering I-797 to any other sponser.
My queries are -
A-Appearing for Visa stamping now after long time is right option or is there any chance of rejection?
B-Since My current employer is not able to employ me there,I want to transfer my I-797. Can It be possible? How much risk is there? If it can be done that what is the process of that please?
C-Since petition is valid till 2011, If I get stamped this year Oct / 2010 what will be duration of visa?
D-Any sponsrs list ?
Thanks,
~Davis
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
div_bell_2003
12-15 08:05 PM
I saw soft LUDs on all our applications at NSC (pending 485s, 131s and approved 765s) on 12/12 and 12/15. This should mean some sort of system update on NSC, is it ? or should I look forward to good/bad news :confused: ? My PD is nowhere close to the current cut off date for EB2-I.
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
good idea
06-02 10:34 AM
Status of my application is updated to "Request for Evidence - Review of Reply",
Can someone share that
-if it means that they acknowledge that they got RFE reply & are (already) reviewing the documents.
or
-if it means that they acknowledge that they got RFE reply, actual review may take week(s)
thanks & regards.
Can someone share that
-if it means that they acknowledge that they got RFE reply & are (already) reviewing the documents.
or
-if it means that they acknowledge that they got RFE reply, actual review may take week(s)
thanks & regards.
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
frostrated
10-01 11:46 PM
H1 and GC are two different processes. Rejection of H1 does not impact GC.
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
Macaca
11-11 08:15 AM
Extreme Politics (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/books/review/Brinkley-t.html) By ALAN BRINKLEY | New York Times, November 11, 2007
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
lonelystar
09-01 11:39 PM
I have to file for I-485 along with EAD and AP, I live in Phoenix and I am applying for 485 based on an approved I-140 based on NIW. Please let me know if I have to file in the Phoenix lockbox or send it to Nebraska.
Thank you
Thank you
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
GCBy3000
06-15 11:24 AM
Does anyone have an idea about CP.
1. My 140 is filed and pending. I did not go through premium
2. How to get the CP appointment?
3. Since we dont file 485 if we prefer CP, what happens if the visa dates retrogress,but you have a CP appointment?
4. Is there a way to secure something in CP while the dates are current. ie, in AOS, just filing is enough to avoid several hassles. Is there anything like this in CP.
1. My 140 is filed and pending. I did not go through premium
2. How to get the CP appointment?
3. Since we dont file 485 if we prefer CP, what happens if the visa dates retrogress,but you have a CP appointment?
4. Is there a way to secure something in CP while the dates are current. ie, in AOS, just filing is enough to avoid several hassles. Is there anything like this in CP.
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
Blog Feeds
01-04 08:00 AM
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates an inclusive mathematical formula for apportioning "Representatives . . . among the Several states". It requires a decennial census count of "the whole number of persons in each State" excluding untaxed Native Americans. As the New York Times reports, a push is on, using Christmas-themed posters in Spanish, to urge Hispanics (citizens, legal residents and the undocumented, especially Evangelical Christians) to cooperate with census-takers and be counted when the tally begins in March, 2010. The effort is targeted beyond the Hispanic community, with posters offered in English ("This is How Jesus Was...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/12/an-immigration-christmas-story-extended-through-march-2010.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/12/an-immigration-christmas-story-extended-through-march-2010.html)
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
senthil
01-12 03:48 PM
saves time runnin around usps / fedex
Candidate
02-01 12:38 AM
Need advice ...I am currently on H1 B.
six years back (on F-1) I started working 2 business days prior to my CPT started.... Unfortunately ... that meant I did work unauthorized for a couple of days. Now I am at a stage where I need to use CPT experience to apply for PERM. Would stating the actual start date on form 9089 (which happens to be 2 days prior to actual CPT start date listed on I 20) pose any future issues?
CAn I be granted lineancy (something like 245K) if in in future this lapse becomes evident to U S C I S. How seriously would this minor violation be treated?
Thanks and appreciate your help!
six years back (on F-1) I started working 2 business days prior to my CPT started.... Unfortunately ... that meant I did work unauthorized for a couple of days. Now I am at a stage where I need to use CPT experience to apply for PERM. Would stating the actual start date on form 9089 (which happens to be 2 days prior to actual CPT start date listed on I 20) pose any future issues?
CAn I be granted lineancy (something like 245K) if in in future this lapse becomes evident to U S C I S. How seriously would this minor violation be treated?
Thanks and appreciate your help!
qvadis
06-26 02:49 PM
Mercury News ran an article today about H1-B Visas and mentioned that "Rep. John Shadegg, a Republican from Arizona, [was] planning to introduce a bill this week or next that would nearly double the number of H-1B visas".
Does anyone know anything about it and does it include EB provisions, as well?
Does anyone know anything about it and does it include EB provisions, as well?
No comments:
Post a Comment