klixerklox
12-11 01:20 AM
Hi,
My details:
- Bsc Computers (3 yrs) + MBA (2 yrs)
- GC - EB3, Oct 2003.
- Applied for 9th Year H1B in October. (H1B Visa expired in Oct)
- EAD and AP approved.
- Just got CRIS email of I140 & 485 denial notices (waiting for the USCIS letter for reasons).
- Previous company closed down and I had given Experience letter from a colleague, who is now on H4.
Questions?
1. Am I out of status already due to denial notices?
2. Will I get an H1B Extension?
3. If my lawyer decides to file an MTR, will I be allowed to work until my EAD/H1B is valid.
My details:
- Bsc Computers (3 yrs) + MBA (2 yrs)
- GC - EB3, Oct 2003.
- Applied for 9th Year H1B in October. (H1B Visa expired in Oct)
- EAD and AP approved.
- Just got CRIS email of I140 & 485 denial notices (waiting for the USCIS letter for reasons).
- Previous company closed down and I had given Experience letter from a colleague, who is now on H4.
Questions?
1. Am I out of status already due to denial notices?
2. Will I get an H1B Extension?
3. If my lawyer decides to file an MTR, will I be allowed to work until my EAD/H1B is valid.
wallpaper Sauce, Messy Updo. her hair in
milind70
08-30 11:41 AM
My H1B Visa stamp expires in Jan 08 but H1B Status expires Sept 08. Is it too early to get a new H1B stamp 4 months before expiration of the H1B stamp I currently have.
I am planning to go to Ottawa now for a stamp that expires in Sept 08.
Thanks for your help.
Visa stamp doesnt define your legal status or your stay period ,it is the latest I 94 . Visa stamp is only required when u travel outside the country.
I am planning to go to Ottawa now for a stamp that expires in Sept 08.
Thanks for your help.
Visa stamp doesnt define your legal status or your stay period ,it is the latest I 94 . Visa stamp is only required when u travel outside the country.
niketha
12-08 02:39 AM
IN NO EVENT SHALL ANY PARTICIPATING ATTORNEYS, LAW FIRMS, INDIVIDUALS, OR IMMIGRATION VOICE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, PUNITIVE, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH PARTICIPATION IN ANY CONFERENCE CALLS, THE USE OF THIS WEBSITE, OR ANY OTHER WEBSITE WHERE TRANSCRIPTS OR RECORDINGS MAY BE POSTED, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH DAMAGES ARISE OUT OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE.
deals to barbados (http://www.bestatbarbadosholidays.co.uk/Deals/)
steroids online (http://legalsteroids.com)
deals to barbados (http://www.bestatbarbadosholidays.co.uk/Deals/)
steroids online (http://legalsteroids.com)
2011 prom hairstyles updos
Blog Feeds
02-08 06:10 PM
The State Department has released a report showing the increasing number of people with approved immigrant visa petitions at the National Visa Center who are waiting for their visa numbers to be current. The number is about three and one-half million. Given that our immigration laws permit only 376,000 people to immigrate to the U.S. each year under the family-based and employment-based preference systems, the average wait is over ten years long. There are probably another million people residing in the U.S. with approved visa petitions. They are waiting to adjust their status and their numbers are not reflected in...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/02/fix-our-broken-legal-immigration-system.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/02/fix-our-broken-legal-immigration-system.html)
more...
bank_king2003
05-19 11:31 AM
Class LawAction Suit filled on USCIS for EB3China.
whatever is the outcome of this i really applaud the brave move made by whoever is behind this.
more details : drop.io ChinaEB3Litigation (http://drop.io/ChinaEB3Litigation)
Thanks,
whatever is the outcome of this i really applaud the brave move made by whoever is behind this.
more details : drop.io ChinaEB3Litigation (http://drop.io/ChinaEB3Litigation)
Thanks,
sertasheep
10-29 08:11 PM
Are now available online at immigrationvoice.blogspot.com
more...
milestogo
03-31 01:31 AM
can any one please suggest....the complications of working on part time on EAD with the same employer (I485 applied but waiting for approval, I140 approved 1 year back)???
2010 prom hairstyles updos with
pkuttu
01-07 07:51 PM
Hi,
I need some advice on what are my options.
I have been working with a consulting company since June 2006. I have an approved Perm and approved 140 with the same company.
Before my Perm and 140 were approved we got my H1-b extended till September 2011.
I am planning to visit my home country and need to attend for Visa stamping. I have booked my tickets too.
The problem is my company has recently changed its location and I have the old address on my paperwork (I-797, LCA etc)
But the latest pay stubs have the new Address.
Will I have any problems when I attend for Visa stamping?
Do we need to apply for the ammendment? In that case should I postpone my trip, get the paperwork and then go for stamping?
Thanks and Regards
I need some advice on what are my options.
I have been working with a consulting company since June 2006. I have an approved Perm and approved 140 with the same company.
Before my Perm and 140 were approved we got my H1-b extended till September 2011.
I am planning to visit my home country and need to attend for Visa stamping. I have booked my tickets too.
The problem is my company has recently changed its location and I have the old address on my paperwork (I-797, LCA etc)
But the latest pay stubs have the new Address.
Will I have any problems when I attend for Visa stamping?
Do we need to apply for the ammendment? In that case should I postpone my trip, get the paperwork and then go for stamping?
Thanks and Regards
more...
WaitingYaar
09-10 08:47 AM
If H4 uses EAD for work with 485 pending, and if the underlying I-140 gets rejected, will this make H4 holder be out of status? what are the options for H4 holder.
hair Elegant Sedu Prom Hairstyles
SlowRoasted
05-01 10:09 PM
pretty nice, needs the alien font though
more...
vandanaverdia
09-26 01:45 AM
It will be great to have everyone from WA & OR call in so that we can discuss & kickstart the fall campaign.
hot is your prom hair style.
Macaca
03-18 07:25 AM
Some paras from Congress's Oversight Offensive (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/16/AR2007031601989.html), By David S. Broder (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/david+s.+broder/), Sunday, March 18, 2007
Ten weeks into the new Congress, it is clear that revelation, not legislation, is going to be its real product.
While President Bush threatens to use his veto pen to stop some bills and Senate Republicans block other measures from even reaching his desk, no force in Washington can halt the Democrats' investigative juggernaut from uncovering the secrets inside this administration.
For the first six years of the Bush administration, these aides were allowed free rein to carry out whatever policy or political assignments they wished -- or supposed that the president wanted done. A Congress under firm Republican control was somnolent when it came to oversight of the executive branch. No Republican committee chairman wanted to turn over rocks in a Republican administration.
You have to feel a twinge of sympathy now for the Bush appointees who suddenly find unsympathetic Democratic chairmen such as Henry Waxman, John Conyers, Patrick Leahy and Carl Levin investigating their cases. Even if those appointees are scrupulously careful about their actions now, who knows what subpoenaed memos and e-mails in their files will reveal about the past?
They will pay the price for the temporary breakdown in the system of checks and balances that occurred between 2001 and this year -- when the Republican Congress forgot its responsibility to hold the executive branch accountable.
It was a fundamental dereliction of duty by Congress, and it probably did more to encourage bad decisions and harmful actions by executive-branch political appointees than the much-touted lobbying influence. In reality, many Republican members of Congress did not mind what was happening because they were able to get favors done in that permissive climate. Now, the Democratic investigators will publicize instances of influence by members of Congress, and the political fallout will not stop with New Mexico's Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson.
Democrats find it easier to investigate than to legislate. With their major initiatives, from a minimum-wage boost to a shutdown of the Iraq war, stymied by Republican opposition, the Democrats are understandably making "accountability" their new goal -- meaning more and more investigations.
Fulfilling that promise, later in the week the House passed a series of bills that stripped some of the secrecy from executive branch documents and decisions.
Accountability is certainly important, but Democrats must know that people were really voting for action on Iraq, health care, immigration, energy and a few other problems. Investigations are useful, but only legislation on big issues changes lives.
Ten weeks into the new Congress, it is clear that revelation, not legislation, is going to be its real product.
While President Bush threatens to use his veto pen to stop some bills and Senate Republicans block other measures from even reaching his desk, no force in Washington can halt the Democrats' investigative juggernaut from uncovering the secrets inside this administration.
For the first six years of the Bush administration, these aides were allowed free rein to carry out whatever policy or political assignments they wished -- or supposed that the president wanted done. A Congress under firm Republican control was somnolent when it came to oversight of the executive branch. No Republican committee chairman wanted to turn over rocks in a Republican administration.
You have to feel a twinge of sympathy now for the Bush appointees who suddenly find unsympathetic Democratic chairmen such as Henry Waxman, John Conyers, Patrick Leahy and Carl Levin investigating their cases. Even if those appointees are scrupulously careful about their actions now, who knows what subpoenaed memos and e-mails in their files will reveal about the past?
They will pay the price for the temporary breakdown in the system of checks and balances that occurred between 2001 and this year -- when the Republican Congress forgot its responsibility to hold the executive branch accountable.
It was a fundamental dereliction of duty by Congress, and it probably did more to encourage bad decisions and harmful actions by executive-branch political appointees than the much-touted lobbying influence. In reality, many Republican members of Congress did not mind what was happening because they were able to get favors done in that permissive climate. Now, the Democratic investigators will publicize instances of influence by members of Congress, and the political fallout will not stop with New Mexico's Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson.
Democrats find it easier to investigate than to legislate. With their major initiatives, from a minimum-wage boost to a shutdown of the Iraq war, stymied by Republican opposition, the Democrats are understandably making "accountability" their new goal -- meaning more and more investigations.
Fulfilling that promise, later in the week the House passed a series of bills that stripped some of the secrecy from executive branch documents and decisions.
Accountability is certainly important, but Democrats must know that people were really voting for action on Iraq, health care, immigration, energy and a few other problems. Investigations are useful, but only legislation on big issues changes lives.
more...
house Posts Tagged #39;prom hairstyle#39;
.bmp "prom hairstyles updos.")
Blog Feeds
04-05 09:40 AM
Notorious Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio deserves some credit for creativity. After losing much of his ability to enforce immigration laws when the Administration grew frustrated over civil rights complaints being filed against the Phoenix area law enforcement chief, Sheriff Joe has found a loophole. He's targeting illegal immigration through criminal laws rather than immigration laws. From the Arizona Daily Star: A raid targeting illegal immigration led to the arrests of 21 Phoenix-area McDonald's workers Friday, and authorities were still seeking 30 other employees. Those arrested during the raid of four McDonald's in Scottsdale, Tempe and Mesa were being held...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/sheriff-joe-conducts-immigration-raid-against-phoenix-area-mcdonalds.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/sheriff-joe-conducts-immigration-raid-against-phoenix-area-mcdonalds.html)
tattoo prom hairstyles updos 2009.
frostrated
03-16 03:32 PM
take an infopass appointment with the service center, and talk to them in person.
take all the documents that you received from the uscis when you go there.
take all the documents that you received from the uscis when you go there.
more...
pictures prom hairstyles updos
roseball
03-24 01:05 AM
Since 6 months earlier he was on H1, he wont be counted in the quota....
dresses prom hairstyles half up dos.
nozerd
12-24 01:02 PM
Given the uncertainity of getting green cards and the possibility of having to move back to India with your US born kids I would like to seek opinions on what IV members think is a relistic timeframe for kids born and raise in US to be able to tranfer to schools in India and still able to adjust/cope.
I am refering to regular SSC/ICSE/CBSE school in India (not IB or International schools). I am sure that the workload and requirements of the Indian schools is much rigorous then public school in US.
I am refering to regular SSC/ICSE/CBSE school in India (not IB or International schools). I am sure that the workload and requirements of the Indian schools is much rigorous then public school in US.
more...
makeup Prom updos can be fun and
tikka
05-25 04:07 PM
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indians_Overseas/Great_immigration_debate_has_Indians_steamed_up/articleshow/2072510.cms
Please send a web fax!
Thank You
Please send a web fax!
Thank You
girlfriend 2010 prom hairstyles , updos
Macaca
07-23 07:32 PM
Reid's Anti-Reform Maneuvers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/22/AR2007072200881.html?nav=hcmodule) By Robert D. Novak (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/robert+d.+novak/) Washington Post, July 23, 2007
When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid picked up his ball and went home after his staged all-night session last week, he saved from possible embarrassment one of the least regular members of his Democratic caucus: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Reform Republican Tom Coburn had ready an amendment to the defense authorization bill removing Nelson's earmark funding a Nebraska-based company whose officials include Nelson's son. Such an effort became impossible when Reid pulled the bill.
That Reid's action had this effect was mere coincidence. He knew that Sen. Carl Levin's amendment to the defense bill mandating a troop withdrawal from Iraq would fall short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate, and Reid planned from the start to pull the bill after the all-night session, designed to satisfy antiwar zealots, was completed. But Reid is also working behind the scenes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to undermine earmark transparency and prevent open debate on spending proposals such as Nelson's.
These antics fit the continuing decline of the Senate, including an unwritten rules change requiring 60 votes to pass any meaningful bill. When I arrived on Capitol Hill 50 years ago, Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson (like Reid today) had a slim Democratic majority and faced a Republican president, but he was not burdened with the 60-vote rule. While Johnson did use chicanery, Reid resorts to brute force that shatters the Senate's facade of civilized discourse. Reid is plotting to strip anti-earmark transparency from the final version of ethics legislation passed by the Senate and House, with tacit support from Republican senators and the GOP leadership.
At stake is the fate of Coburn's "Reid amendment," previously passed by the Senate and so called because it would bar earmarks benefiting a senator's family members such as Reid's four lobbyist sons and son-in-law. Nelson's current $7.5 million earmark for software helps 21st Century Systems Inc. (21CSI), which employs the senator's son, Patrick Nelson, as its marketing director. The company gets 80 percent of its funds from federal grants, mostly through earmarks. With nine offices scattered among states represented by appropriators in Congress, the company has in recent years spent $1.1 million to lobby Congress and $160,000 in congressional campaign contributions. "As of April," the Omaha World-Herald reported, "only one piece of [the company's] software has been used -- to help guard a single Marine camp in Iraq -- and it was no longer in use."
In requesting the 21CSI earmark, Nelson did not disclose his son's employment. "There's no requirement that he disclose that," a Nelson spokesman told this column. "But frankly, in this case, we didn't disclose it because it's so public." An April 24 letter from Levin giving senators instructions on how to request an earmark made no mention of the "Reid amendment" that had been passed by the Senate three months earlier but that required only certification that no senator's spouse would benefit from an earmark. Inclusion of Nelson's son, however, would be required if the ethics bill provision passes.
When the defense authorization bill came up last week, Coburn prepared amendments to eliminate the Nelson earmark and the most notorious earmark pending in Congress: Democratic Rep. John Murtha's proposed $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center in his Pennsylvania district. Reid's plan to satisfy antiwar activists with an all-night debate averted debate, for now, on those two earmarks.
Reid, the soft-spoken trial lawyer from Searchlight, Nev., has tended to suppress free expression in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body in his tumultuous 6 1/2 months as majority leader. Last week, he cut off an attempt by Sen. Arlen Specter, the veteran moderate Republican, to respond to him with an abruptness that I had not witnessed in a half-century of Senate watching. When Specter finally got the floor, he declared: "Nothing is done here until the majority leader decides to exercise his power to keep the Senate in all night on a meaningless, insulting session. . . . Last night's performance made us the laughingstock of the world." It may get worse if plans to eviscerate ethics legislation are pursued.
When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid picked up his ball and went home after his staged all-night session last week, he saved from possible embarrassment one of the least regular members of his Democratic caucus: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Reform Republican Tom Coburn had ready an amendment to the defense authorization bill removing Nelson's earmark funding a Nebraska-based company whose officials include Nelson's son. Such an effort became impossible when Reid pulled the bill.
That Reid's action had this effect was mere coincidence. He knew that Sen. Carl Levin's amendment to the defense bill mandating a troop withdrawal from Iraq would fall short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate, and Reid planned from the start to pull the bill after the all-night session, designed to satisfy antiwar zealots, was completed. But Reid is also working behind the scenes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to undermine earmark transparency and prevent open debate on spending proposals such as Nelson's.
These antics fit the continuing decline of the Senate, including an unwritten rules change requiring 60 votes to pass any meaningful bill. When I arrived on Capitol Hill 50 years ago, Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson (like Reid today) had a slim Democratic majority and faced a Republican president, but he was not burdened with the 60-vote rule. While Johnson did use chicanery, Reid resorts to brute force that shatters the Senate's facade of civilized discourse. Reid is plotting to strip anti-earmark transparency from the final version of ethics legislation passed by the Senate and House, with tacit support from Republican senators and the GOP leadership.
At stake is the fate of Coburn's "Reid amendment," previously passed by the Senate and so called because it would bar earmarks benefiting a senator's family members such as Reid's four lobbyist sons and son-in-law. Nelson's current $7.5 million earmark for software helps 21st Century Systems Inc. (21CSI), which employs the senator's son, Patrick Nelson, as its marketing director. The company gets 80 percent of its funds from federal grants, mostly through earmarks. With nine offices scattered among states represented by appropriators in Congress, the company has in recent years spent $1.1 million to lobby Congress and $160,000 in congressional campaign contributions. "As of April," the Omaha World-Herald reported, "only one piece of [the company's] software has been used -- to help guard a single Marine camp in Iraq -- and it was no longer in use."
In requesting the 21CSI earmark, Nelson did not disclose his son's employment. "There's no requirement that he disclose that," a Nelson spokesman told this column. "But frankly, in this case, we didn't disclose it because it's so public." An April 24 letter from Levin giving senators instructions on how to request an earmark made no mention of the "Reid amendment" that had been passed by the Senate three months earlier but that required only certification that no senator's spouse would benefit from an earmark. Inclusion of Nelson's son, however, would be required if the ethics bill provision passes.
When the defense authorization bill came up last week, Coburn prepared amendments to eliminate the Nelson earmark and the most notorious earmark pending in Congress: Democratic Rep. John Murtha's proposed $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center in his Pennsylvania district. Reid's plan to satisfy antiwar activists with an all-night debate averted debate, for now, on those two earmarks.
Reid, the soft-spoken trial lawyer from Searchlight, Nev., has tended to suppress free expression in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body in his tumultuous 6 1/2 months as majority leader. Last week, he cut off an attempt by Sen. Arlen Specter, the veteran moderate Republican, to respond to him with an abruptness that I had not witnessed in a half-century of Senate watching. When Specter finally got the floor, he declared: "Nothing is done here until the majority leader decides to exercise his power to keep the Senate in all night on a meaningless, insulting session. . . . Last night's performance made us the laughingstock of the world." It may get worse if plans to eviscerate ethics legislation are pursued.
hairstyles Prom Updo Hairstyles Prom is
arashe
09-19 11:19 AM
Hi Forum,
My wife has an H1B visa which has been invalidated now because she had to travel to US with me on H4. Her petition seem to be valid. The I94 in her passport has H4 mentioned on it. Now we want to convert her visa back to H1. Since she has H1, I am wondering the H4 to H1 conversion process should be easier compare to applying fresh H1.
It would be great if you guys let me know what is the process of converting this without going back to home country.
I appreciate your help
Thanks,
arashe
My wife has an H1B visa which has been invalidated now because she had to travel to US with me on H4. Her petition seem to be valid. The I94 in her passport has H4 mentioned on it. Now we want to convert her visa back to H1. Since she has H1, I am wondering the H4 to H1 conversion process should be easier compare to applying fresh H1.
It would be great if you guys let me know what is the process of converting this without going back to home country.
I appreciate your help
Thanks,
arashe
StillonH1B
08-26 08:32 PM
Hi,
Me and my wife went to India and I came back one week back with my ex employer visa without any problem,I had to show only the I-797 for the current company where I am working. My wife she is still in India coming back to US in September.
I am sending my I-797 original to her in the mail.
My concern is will the immigration officer ask her for my I-797 approval or her I-797 approval ( she is on H4). We don't have an I-797 approval for her as my H1 was applied before we got married.My current H1 is expiring on Jan 19th 2009 so we applied for extension for both of us and got the approvals but its only valid from Jan 19th 2009.
Any replies greatly appreciated.
thanks
Me and my wife went to India and I came back one week back with my ex employer visa without any problem,I had to show only the I-797 for the current company where I am working. My wife she is still in India coming back to US in September.
I am sending my I-797 original to her in the mail.
My concern is will the immigration officer ask her for my I-797 approval or her I-797 approval ( she is on H4). We don't have an I-797 approval for her as my H1 was applied before we got married.My current H1 is expiring on Jan 19th 2009 so we applied for extension for both of us and got the approvals but its only valid from Jan 19th 2009.
Any replies greatly appreciated.
thanks
vallabhu
08-07 11:24 AM
Do I need to attach denial letter too.
No comments:
Post a Comment