extra_mint
09-15 01:11 PM
Congratulations ....
wow !!! freedom when your wife is in India ....go to strip bar and have fun:) you need to enjoy
wow !!! freedom when your wife is in India ....go to strip bar and have fun:) you need to enjoy
wallpaper friendster wallpaper.
ujayra01
07-12 10:21 AM
Most of the EB3 India applicants having received their GC between 2002 and 2005?
You really got to be kidding us. The 8 people I know of in EB3 during these period is still waiting.
actually, i think that the EB3 will also make rapid advances come October.
with the quota exhausted for this year, and the pre-adjudication taking place and with most of the EB3 India applicants having received their GC between 2002 and 2005, i think the dates will advance to 2003 by Dec and to mid 2004 by Feb/March. After that, it is anyone's guess if the quota for India will hold out. As for me, I see at least another year or two wait for my GC, unless the Congress passes a miracle.
You really got to be kidding us. The 8 people I know of in EB3 during these period is still waiting.
actually, i think that the EB3 will also make rapid advances come October.
with the quota exhausted for this year, and the pre-adjudication taking place and with most of the EB3 India applicants having received their GC between 2002 and 2005, i think the dates will advance to 2003 by Dec and to mid 2004 by Feb/March. After that, it is anyone's guess if the quota for India will hold out. As for me, I see at least another year or two wait for my GC, unless the Congress passes a miracle.
agc2005
09-06 09:52 AM
Last year me and my wife had same issue with EAD and AP , we had to send them back with new application, new photos, passport photo copies and cover letter explaining that it's USCIS Admin error, we didn't send the checks.
Later we received corrected EADs after 5 weeks, but for AP it took about 2 months.
agc2005
PD: EB2 3/2005
RD: 07/02
Later we received corrected EADs after 5 weeks, but for AP it took about 2 months.
agc2005
PD: EB2 3/2005
RD: 07/02
2011 friendster wallpaper. too for
immi_enthu
09-28 05:05 PM
That's the reason why they are now changing the receipt date to September even if you filed on July 2nd..
I think this is just their way of saying......give us another month.
They have already got around it. They ARE NOT receipting the applications on the actual date they receive them. They are stamping the received dates only when they 'enter' it into their system.
The receipt date on my receipt notice days July 2nd not September. The online one says September 7th. I have evedence by document from them that my application was received on July 2nd.
I think this is just their way of saying......give us another month.
They have already got around it. They ARE NOT receipting the applications on the actual date they receive them. They are stamping the received dates only when they 'enter' it into their system.
The receipt date on my receipt notice days July 2nd not September. The online one says September 7th. I have evedence by document from them that my application was received on July 2nd.
more...
vicky007
05-10 12:16 PM
Sorry, the link is not working anymore.
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
logiclife
12-15 10:39 AM
This is actually good. this means that the company will not meddle in H1B and your papers and do whatever the lawyer says should be done.
That means that you have a chance to hire your own lawyer and establish contact between company and lawyer.
It may cost your some money to hire a lawyer, but trust me, having your own lawyer that is employed by you (rather than employer) is worth 10 times the lawyer's fees. Get a lawyer, ask your company to talk to that lawyer and follow his/her directions. All you company has to do is provide the paperwork.
Tell your company that its not a big deal and even 10-employee companies sponsor H1 and its a matter of paperwork.
That means that you have a chance to hire your own lawyer and establish contact between company and lawyer.
It may cost your some money to hire a lawyer, but trust me, having your own lawyer that is employed by you (rather than employer) is worth 10 times the lawyer's fees. Get a lawyer, ask your company to talk to that lawyer and follow his/her directions. All you company has to do is provide the paperwork.
Tell your company that its not a big deal and even 10-employee companies sponsor H1 and its a matter of paperwork.
more...
munnu77
04-16 01:55 PM
Any one from Sugarland (Houston TX)? Its rated one of the best place to buy the house NOW .
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/real_estate/0804/gallery.best_buy_home.moneymag/6.html
How is the IT job market there? who are the big employers in Houston area?
not a good place for IT...dallas or austin is better than houston...
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/real_estate/0804/gallery.best_buy_home.moneymag/6.html
How is the IT job market there? who are the big employers in Houston area?
not a good place for IT...dallas or austin is better than houston...
2010 friendster wallpaper.
sky7
07-28 10:02 AM
I was reading some latest info about I140 & I140 Premium Processing at
http://www.murthy.com/bulletin.html
it stated
In order to be eligible for the three-year extension, the H1B worker must be the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition and the case must be subject to retrogression (nonavailability of visa numbers).
So say I got approved I140, but since i am as of now..not subject to retrogression (I am not from India/China, my EB2 is current - PD 9/2002), then I won't be eligible for 3-yr H1B extension???? :eek:
Anyone knows?
Thanks..
http://www.murthy.com/bulletin.html
it stated
In order to be eligible for the three-year extension, the H1B worker must be the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition and the case must be subject to retrogression (nonavailability of visa numbers).
So say I got approved I140, but since i am as of now..not subject to retrogression (I am not from India/China, my EB2 is current - PD 9/2002), then I won't be eligible for 3-yr H1B extension???? :eek:
Anyone knows?
Thanks..
more...
akhilmahajan
04-23 09:43 AM
I dont think there is any such practise...........
i think the lawyer or your company who filed it, will get all the communication from USCIS...........
so just keep on trying.............
i am not a pro at it, but will like to say, never give up trying.........
i think the lawyer or your company who filed it, will get all the communication from USCIS...........
so just keep on trying.............
i am not a pro at it, but will like to say, never give up trying.........
hair Friendster / Backgrounds
Tommy_S
03-08 02:35 AM
heh... the problem w/ this is... all the sites seem to be influenced by one another... and progressively got better... you all should've kept your stuff under wraps until the end
Voted for mlkedave. I like the style.
Voted for mlkedave. I like the style.
more...
yabadaba
06-29 02:22 AM
Yabadaba,
I am in a similar situation with no new stamp or I-94 while last entry into the US from Canada at a land border crossing. This is the date/place that I had mentioned in my I-485.
See
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=158111
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=145094&page=1&pp=15&highlight=canada
http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=165295
There is a mighty good probabilty that we will get an RFE to
establish proof of inspection of entry into the US
So...start getting together any proofs for that:D that said it is fairly easy to take care RFE
for u - u need to put in the last time u got a stamp when u left/entered the country. my case was different, I had gotten a visa stamp from toronto. that should be sufficient proof for uscis
I am in a similar situation with no new stamp or I-94 while last entry into the US from Canada at a land border crossing. This is the date/place that I had mentioned in my I-485.
See
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=158111
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=145094&page=1&pp=15&highlight=canada
http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=165295
There is a mighty good probabilty that we will get an RFE to
establish proof of inspection of entry into the US
So...start getting together any proofs for that:D that said it is fairly easy to take care RFE
for u - u need to put in the last time u got a stamp when u left/entered the country. my case was different, I had gotten a visa stamp from toronto. that should be sufficient proof for uscis
hot emo friendster wallpaper.
rghrdr777
10-25 09:19 AM
Just spoke with a TSC IO. She was a pretty nice lady and answered all my questions. Apparently, mine and my spouse's AP were approved on 10/17/2007. We still didn't receive the APs. The online status still shows pending. I believe my attorney may receive the AP docs.
I've asked her about my Name Check and Fingerprint. According to her my name check was initiated on 8/9/2007 and it is pending. My FBI fingerprint check came back on 9/10/2007.
TSC (Sent to NSC. Got transferred to TSC)
RD: 06/25/2007
ND: 08/01/2007
EAD Self Card Received: 08/23
EAD Spouse Card Received: 08/25
FP done for myself and Spouse: 09/06
Name check initiated on 08/09/2007 and is pending
AP: Waiting (according to TSC IO approved on 10/17/2007)
GC: Waiting
I've asked her about my Name Check and Fingerprint. According to her my name check was initiated on 8/9/2007 and it is pending. My FBI fingerprint check came back on 9/10/2007.
TSC (Sent to NSC. Got transferred to TSC)
RD: 06/25/2007
ND: 08/01/2007
EAD Self Card Received: 08/23
EAD Spouse Card Received: 08/25
FP done for myself and Spouse: 09/06
Name check initiated on 08/09/2007 and is pending
AP: Waiting (according to TSC IO approved on 10/17/2007)
GC: Waiting
more...
house friendster wallpaper,
dealsnet
08-14 01:05 PM
It is pure luck. It depends on where your file in the USCIS rack. They will take easy accessible file for approval. No specific criterea. Only thing is your PD must current. They will approve 2006 when 2001 PD still on their shelf.
This is just my theory. When you don't have much information, you get to think of many theories and here is mine. I believe USCIS is approving direct employees of an organization. For example, they may be giving preference to Microsoft employee, rather than an employee of Patel and Patel INC. I know I may be wrong, but I am just pondering. How can someone explain a person with PD 05/03/2006 with RD 08/01/2007 has much preference over a person with PD 05/03/2006 with RD 07/20/2007? Provided that everything is approved(I-140, Name check etc) Am I missing something here? :confused::confused:
People may post their answers, proving that I am wrong.
This is just my theory. When you don't have much information, you get to think of many theories and here is mine. I believe USCIS is approving direct employees of an organization. For example, they may be giving preference to Microsoft employee, rather than an employee of Patel and Patel INC. I know I may be wrong, but I am just pondering. How can someone explain a person with PD 05/03/2006 with RD 08/01/2007 has much preference over a person with PD 05/03/2006 with RD 07/20/2007? Provided that everything is approved(I-140, Name check etc) Am I missing something here? :confused::confused:
People may post their answers, proving that I am wrong.
tattoo emo friendster wallpaper. emo
xela
04-23 05:59 PM
June 31?
lol Thanks,....yeah the impossible day....no it was the 30th, my bad
lol Thanks,....yeah the impossible day....no it was the 30th, my bad
more...
pictures emo friendster wallpaper.
qualified_trash
12-15 11:35 AM
I think if you have 2 years left, you will get H1 transfer and the new H1 will have 2 years. After those 2 years, you will get another 3 years if your 140 is not revoked by your previous employer.
he can get a 3 yr extension no matter what because I am assuming that he will go through PERM and have his I140 approved through the new company in a year or so.
the only benefit of the old I140 is to port the Priority Date.
he can get a 3 yr extension no matter what because I am assuming that he will go through PERM and have his I140 approved through the new company in a year or so.
the only benefit of the old I140 is to port the Priority Date.
dresses friendster wallpaper.
gjoe
05-01 10:44 AM
someone just woke up after 8 months, now asking the agenda, not willing to spare a penny or bring in energy, but wants an "update" about the date & time he will get his GC in mail. Is that something new, NO, its been a consistent behavior, that's why I never liked gjoe.
.
I didn't want an update. I know what is going on and also when we will get our GC. I just wanted to make you realize that your goals and actions are not in sync. I hope you understand what that means.
My penny and energy are invested in the right place were the returns are in propotion :)
Good luck to you and all.
.
I didn't want an update. I know what is going on and also when we will get our GC. I just wanted to make you realize that your goals and actions are not in sync. I hope you understand what that means.
My penny and energy are invested in the right place were the returns are in propotion :)
Good luck to you and all.
more...
makeup friendster wallpaper. for
prioritydate
08-14 12:33 PM
yes u are
And what is that??
And what is that??
girlfriend friendster wallpaper. Friendster Wallpapers; Friendster Wallpapers
go_guy123
11-24 10:00 AM
"Its all about votes" only comes after - my point was that the unity the latino community projects is the driving force.
The critical mass drives the unity. The indian community is lot lot smaller and even if united it will lack the critical mass. That itself drives them to persue individual subgroup interest by joing other interest groups thereby disuniting. The 90s was the period when
hispanic community got united especially after Pete Wilson in Califonia and in US. There was major naturalization drive and voting effort.
The critical mass drives the unity. The indian community is lot lot smaller and even if united it will lack the critical mass. That itself drives them to persue individual subgroup interest by joing other interest groups thereby disuniting. The 90s was the period when
hispanic community got united especially after Pete Wilson in Califonia and in US. There was major naturalization drive and voting effort.
hairstyles ackground slipknot - 1190241
immi2006
10-21 11:40 PM
I do not think so, even though you have two application , there will be only 1 A# for each applicant.
We got only 1 FP notice for each of us. Our case is slightly different. I filed for myself and my wife. My wife filed for herself.
We did not apply for EAD and AP, through my wife. I applied from my side for both of us.
OK, everyone knows that double I485 was not a good idea. However, many people had done it and I was one who was thinking of it, but did not do it. As per my attorney's advise, stopping a check issued to a governmental entity is not legal. On these grounds, I decided not to file 2nd time.
I guess the best way would be to withdraw the second petition. One can do that by writing a letter stating the reason for withdrawal and sending it to the appropriate service center (with tracking number.) Of course, the reason should be true, "Due to the July Visa Bulletin fiasco and indications that my first I485 could have been lost, I sent out a second application which is should not be considered anymore," or something like that. Withdrawal of the second I485 would, most likely, be the safest way to go about it.
Regards,
We got only 1 FP notice for each of us. Our case is slightly different. I filed for myself and my wife. My wife filed for herself.
We did not apply for EAD and AP, through my wife. I applied from my side for both of us.
OK, everyone knows that double I485 was not a good idea. However, many people had done it and I was one who was thinking of it, but did not do it. As per my attorney's advise, stopping a check issued to a governmental entity is not legal. On these grounds, I decided not to file 2nd time.
I guess the best way would be to withdraw the second petition. One can do that by writing a letter stating the reason for withdrawal and sending it to the appropriate service center (with tracking number.) Of course, the reason should be true, "Due to the July Visa Bulletin fiasco and indications that my first I485 could have been lost, I sent out a second application which is should not be considered anymore," or something like that. Withdrawal of the second I485 would, most likely, be the safest way to go about it.
Regards,
gemini23
07-02 07:46 PM
Srikondoji,
the reference to mexicans here is defnintely uncalled for and has racist odor. You could have used "illegal immegrant" as they can be from any country in the world. I would expect a little maturity and humbleness from a senior member. my word of advice..dont be frustrated...this gc game needs lot more patience.
please apoligize and donate something to IV.
the reference to mexicans here is defnintely uncalled for and has racist odor. You could have used "illegal immegrant" as they can be from any country in the world. I would expect a little maturity and humbleness from a senior member. my word of advice..dont be frustrated...this gc game needs lot more patience.
please apoligize and donate something to IV.
TexDBoy
09-10 09:09 PM
If your Opt is till Dec ... why did you get H1B with no I-94 ...
I thought that only happens if you have gap between OPT and H1B ...
I thought that only happens if you have gap between OPT and H1B ...
No comments:
Post a Comment