vxg
01-03 03:59 PM
Namecheck is done on everyone applying for any US visa at consulate. There is a database which i think called a lookout system and if you get a hit than you will go through further checks. It happened in 2004 and she has to pay $85 fee give full fingerprints at Delhi consulate and took about 6 weeks to get cleared.
vxg,
How come they are doing namechecks on women? That is supposed to only for male from 17-45 years of age? Can you please clarify? what is namecheck or TechnologyAlertList (this is the only check they can likely do on women as per my understaning).
What that namecheck on YOU or on your wife?
Thanks.
vxg,
How come they are doing namechecks on women? That is supposed to only for male from 17-45 years of age? Can you please clarify? what is namecheck or TechnologyAlertList (this is the only check they can likely do on women as per my understaning).
What that namecheck on YOU or on your wife?
Thanks.
wallpaper Selena Gomez amp; The Scene
ImmiLosers
09-26 08:53 PM
Even if your employer revokes I-140 the PD is locked - Make sure you have a Copy of 140 approval Receipt Notice and a copy of the Labor PD. When you file new GC or 485 application just ask your company's lawyer to slip in the old 140 instead of new 140.
This is a real cool feature but make sure you have to maintain H status all the time - i'm here for 9 yrs and whenever i think about these maverick cool steps i stop at the point of H transfer , extension and fear of getting H denied.
Just to correct you - if you request USCIS to port your old PD during 2nd 140 approval you are good; if you request during I-485 , you got to attach both I140s, which is another recipe for confusion.
In my case I ported but did not get the benefit yet ;
Do it when you have desperate situation? Not sure whether USCIS scrutinize
such applications more than others.
This is a real cool feature but make sure you have to maintain H status all the time - i'm here for 9 yrs and whenever i think about these maverick cool steps i stop at the point of H transfer , extension and fear of getting H denied.
Just to correct you - if you request USCIS to port your old PD during 2nd 140 approval you are good; if you request during I-485 , you got to attach both I140s, which is another recipe for confusion.
In my case I ported but did not get the benefit yet ;
Do it when you have desperate situation? Not sure whether USCIS scrutinize
such applications more than others.
immidude
07-13 01:19 PM
Idea behind my post is to look professional,uniform,united,organized and most of all look different to draw more attention (which is how we got good media coverage in flower campaign)
2011 SELENA GOMEZ WHO SAYS MUSIC
Krilnon
03-04 11:06 PM
I don't understand why anyone would want to let Kirupa have any control over this site.
more...
snathan
02-09 02:42 PM
Thanks ssdtm! You gave useful information
If its useful...please consider contribution or just be another free rider. The choice is yours.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23597&page=1000
If its useful...please consider contribution or just be another free rider. The choice is yours.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23597&page=1000
priderock
05-15 10:35 AM
Wonder how many core group members benefited with this forward movement !!
more...
satyasaich
08-28 08:36 AM
to tell you the truth, DO NOT make silly statements at all. like someone said in this forum, we ARE professionals and dignified individuals with a wide array of qualifications by virtue of which WE are doing jobs in this country. some of us are here working for more than 8 years, some others may be 3 years, some others may have just begun.
Don't waste your time.if this country wants to loose wizards like who created hotmail or google, please let your lawmakers know that. and let me know the response you get.
I hope you all boycot the work and do a rally. That will help those Americans replaced by you, to finally get their job back. Or even better that will help the millions of tech workers in India, who wants to get your job, a chance. So go for it.
Don't waste your time.if this country wants to loose wizards like who created hotmail or google, please let your lawmakers know that. and let me know the response you get.
I hope you all boycot the work and do a rally. That will help those Americans replaced by you, to finally get their job back. Or even better that will help the millions of tech workers in India, who wants to get your job, a chance. So go for it.
2010 infidélité à Selena Gomez-
chi_shark
07-07 11:00 AM
as i experienced, almost all attorneys will ask you to file ac21. some attorneys charge as much as $1000 each time you change jobs... its ka-ching for them...
as for not wasting time when pd is currrent... i absolve you of that crime :-) jk... but IMHO you really cannot influence the outcome of this process by being quick on your part except ensuring continuation of the process...
as for the original question: you need not have to convince anyone about EAD... as someone else pointed out, the first page of the I-9 form states clearly that its illegal to discriminate based on immigration status... if you are in IT, there are umpteen examples of what you are trying to do (yours truly included)... just play it easy... best of luck...
with the lack of regulation on AC 21 law, each attorney's take different position when it comes to handling AC 21 cases, in my case the primary reason driven to file AC 21 is the small window of period available in getting I 485 adjudicated when the PD is current, so I don't want to loose time when the PD is current and get an RFE from USCIS and running back and forth to get the RFE responded before loosing PD, more over I took the 20 minute counselling with Murthy law firm and they advised to notify USCIS about employer change.Later I was fortunate that USCIS did not issue RFE(may be it helped USCIS by notifying them in advance and clear their doubt) and approve my I 485 when PD was current.
Cheers
Kris
as for not wasting time when pd is currrent... i absolve you of that crime :-) jk... but IMHO you really cannot influence the outcome of this process by being quick on your part except ensuring continuation of the process...
as for the original question: you need not have to convince anyone about EAD... as someone else pointed out, the first page of the I-9 form states clearly that its illegal to discriminate based on immigration status... if you are in IT, there are umpteen examples of what you are trying to do (yours truly included)... just play it easy... best of luck...
with the lack of regulation on AC 21 law, each attorney's take different position when it comes to handling AC 21 cases, in my case the primary reason driven to file AC 21 is the small window of period available in getting I 485 adjudicated when the PD is current, so I don't want to loose time when the PD is current and get an RFE from USCIS and running back and forth to get the RFE responded before loosing PD, more over I took the 20 minute counselling with Murthy law firm and they advised to notify USCIS about employer change.Later I was fortunate that USCIS did not issue RFE(may be it helped USCIS by notifying them in advance and clear their doubt) and approve my I 485 when PD was current.
Cheers
Kris
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
hair hairstyles selena gomez songs
vinzak
01-07 12:02 PM
Just wanted to bump this post in case people missed it. I'm surprised it didn't receive more attention.
We've been looking to a piecemeal bill that addresses EB concerns, and this one seems to be just what we asked for. The text of the bill is not out yet. But DV gives out 50k visas every year, and if those are redirected to EB, we'd be golden. And since they are already talking about EB, if we can somehow manage to inject recapture into this bill, I think it would bve a real chance to wipe out the EB backlog completely.
What u think guys?
We've been looking to a piecemeal bill that addresses EB concerns, and this one seems to be just what we asked for. The text of the bill is not out yet. But DV gives out 50k visas every year, and if those are redirected to EB, we'd be golden. And since they are already talking about EB, if we can somehow manage to inject recapture into this bill, I think it would bve a real chance to wipe out the EB backlog completely.
What u think guys?
more...
mdforgc
02-23 05:43 AM
I had the same experience when I was trying to arrange state volunteers for IV to meet the lawmaker, I was asked questions to the same effect.. What and howmuch of IV resources are being spent for labor backlog elimination? It is stated in the agenda on the home page. A webfax for a letter writing campaing was suppsed to start, but has not started yet. I think IV should work onputting up the letter on the site for people to use to send to lawmakers.
hot Selena Gomez “Who Says” Lyrics
logiclife
01-01 11:03 PM
I have been looking at a lot of posts on this Rajiv Khanna�s immigrationportal and there seems to be a lot of confusion about who is legit and really interested in our cause and who is faking it to collect money and run with it.
I agree that its hard to trust someone you�ve never met and get involved in discussing strategy, participate etc let alone cut a check of $50.
LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING HERE:
I have no vested interested in diverting people from any website to any website and re-divert people from one organization to another. If you know someone who works for you and you trust � fine. Go with it.
I personally am really really mad at the retrogression going on in EB GC. I applied for my Labor in Sept 2004. Got it approved in June 2005. I have been sitting on my hands since. I-140 is in process. With the speed things are going now, I will have GC no sooner than 6 years.
AND I AM JUST MAD THAT AFTER ALL THESE YEARS�I CAN�T EVEN APPLY FOR I-485.
Then I came across this website on the morning of 31st DEC and then looked at immigrationvoice.org. Talked to a couple of people on the phone from immigrationvoice.org. I am going to post tomorrow�s agenda of conference call RIGHT HERE.
If you want to participate in this call, either to suggest ideas or to check out if we are legit or not, just register on immigrationvoice.org (ITS FREE) and send an email with your phone numbers (its free) so that we can verify that you are legit and not a heckler who is going to disrupt the conference call.
If you still are not convinced and trust someone else, go with it.
Another thing�immigrationvoice.org is only 4 days old. Bear with us if we are not perfect. But we will surely be fully functional with all the bells and whistles before you know it.
AGENDA for tomorrow�s conference call:
A) GENERATE PUBLICITY ABOUT IMMIGRATIONVOICE.ORG.
Spread the word that this website is going to consolidate all efforts to have provisions to eliminate retrogression. Convince people that immigrationvoice.org is legit and operated by people WHO DON�T HAVE GC/CITIZENSHIP and are waiting in line for GC.
B) GATHER FACTS FROM BOOKS, AUTHENTIC SOURCES.
There are at least 3 books out there that deal with exodus of talent from this country either due to cultural reasons or due to hostile immigration policy. These books claim that there is competition for talent out there (�Talent� being people like H1Bs, researchers, engineers etc) between US and other countries and USA IS LOSING. Check out �Flight Capital� by David Heenan and �The flight of the creative class� by Richard Florida.
We want those facts to convince congress that eliminating retrogression is not only in an immigrant�s interest, BUT IN THE INTEREST OF AN AVERAGE AMERICAN EMPLOYER. We are not looking for a frigging charity or a handout. We are not saying �O dear congress, give us a green card and we shall be eternally thankful to thy congress�. That is a wrong strategy and an unnecessary one.We are legal immigrants. We are not looking for amnesty. Just a fair deal for people who stand in line for GC and play by the rules, pay their taxes, protect their status and obey the rule of the law.
We are looking to consolidate an already existing symbiotic relationship. A win-win situation.
C) INFLUENCE CONGRESS.
By this time, anyone who is not living under a rock knows that there is a comprehensive immigration bill coming up before congress. The bill will be introduced, debated and most likely passed. The question is whether or not the retrogression relief measures are included or thrown out.
We need to plan a strategy to
1) Convince congress with FACTS and NUMBERS how the current H1B program has given an edge to US employers and contributed to the society in general and how it is in America�s interest to put this symbiotic relationship on a solid ground by speeding up Employment based green card.
2) To work with congress, devise a strategy to meet them in person, as many as possible. Create an A-list of senators and congressmen who have the most say in committees and sub-committee hearings. We would work to communicate and convince these men first and then have a message machine to send a blanket message to ALL.
If you are still not convinced and go with someone else or go with do-nothing-and-hope-for-best strategy, then go ahead.
OTHERWISE register and participate. And you wont lose a dime by doing that.
I agree that its hard to trust someone you�ve never met and get involved in discussing strategy, participate etc let alone cut a check of $50.
LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING HERE:
I have no vested interested in diverting people from any website to any website and re-divert people from one organization to another. If you know someone who works for you and you trust � fine. Go with it.
I personally am really really mad at the retrogression going on in EB GC. I applied for my Labor in Sept 2004. Got it approved in June 2005. I have been sitting on my hands since. I-140 is in process. With the speed things are going now, I will have GC no sooner than 6 years.
AND I AM JUST MAD THAT AFTER ALL THESE YEARS�I CAN�T EVEN APPLY FOR I-485.
Then I came across this website on the morning of 31st DEC and then looked at immigrationvoice.org. Talked to a couple of people on the phone from immigrationvoice.org. I am going to post tomorrow�s agenda of conference call RIGHT HERE.
If you want to participate in this call, either to suggest ideas or to check out if we are legit or not, just register on immigrationvoice.org (ITS FREE) and send an email with your phone numbers (its free) so that we can verify that you are legit and not a heckler who is going to disrupt the conference call.
If you still are not convinced and trust someone else, go with it.
Another thing�immigrationvoice.org is only 4 days old. Bear with us if we are not perfect. But we will surely be fully functional with all the bells and whistles before you know it.
AGENDA for tomorrow�s conference call:
A) GENERATE PUBLICITY ABOUT IMMIGRATIONVOICE.ORG.
Spread the word that this website is going to consolidate all efforts to have provisions to eliminate retrogression. Convince people that immigrationvoice.org is legit and operated by people WHO DON�T HAVE GC/CITIZENSHIP and are waiting in line for GC.
B) GATHER FACTS FROM BOOKS, AUTHENTIC SOURCES.
There are at least 3 books out there that deal with exodus of talent from this country either due to cultural reasons or due to hostile immigration policy. These books claim that there is competition for talent out there (�Talent� being people like H1Bs, researchers, engineers etc) between US and other countries and USA IS LOSING. Check out �Flight Capital� by David Heenan and �The flight of the creative class� by Richard Florida.
We want those facts to convince congress that eliminating retrogression is not only in an immigrant�s interest, BUT IN THE INTEREST OF AN AVERAGE AMERICAN EMPLOYER. We are not looking for a frigging charity or a handout. We are not saying �O dear congress, give us a green card and we shall be eternally thankful to thy congress�. That is a wrong strategy and an unnecessary one.We are legal immigrants. We are not looking for amnesty. Just a fair deal for people who stand in line for GC and play by the rules, pay their taxes, protect their status and obey the rule of the law.
We are looking to consolidate an already existing symbiotic relationship. A win-win situation.
C) INFLUENCE CONGRESS.
By this time, anyone who is not living under a rock knows that there is a comprehensive immigration bill coming up before congress. The bill will be introduced, debated and most likely passed. The question is whether or not the retrogression relief measures are included or thrown out.
We need to plan a strategy to
1) Convince congress with FACTS and NUMBERS how the current H1B program has given an edge to US employers and contributed to the society in general and how it is in America�s interest to put this symbiotic relationship on a solid ground by speeding up Employment based green card.
2) To work with congress, devise a strategy to meet them in person, as many as possible. Create an A-list of senators and congressmen who have the most say in committees and sub-committee hearings. We would work to communicate and convince these men first and then have a message machine to send a blanket message to ALL.
If you are still not convinced and go with someone else or go with do-nothing-and-hope-for-best strategy, then go ahead.
OTHERWISE register and participate. And you wont lose a dime by doing that.
more...
house justin biebers song somebody
Nil
11-13 12:06 AM
^^^^
tattoo Selena Gomez has revealed that
GCD
07-27 10:07 PM
My lawyer filed the I-485, EAD and AP package for me and my wife. She put a G-28 notice for each application (with our and her signatures). She missed signing the AP G-28 for my wife. I asked her about this. She said it should be fine. They would not consider her notice of representation for this particular case, and would mail the AP approval directly at our home address.
I hope we are fine and our application doesn't get rejected since we had one check for all the applications.
Please reply. Thanks a lot.
Gurus. Please reply. Thanks a lot.
I hope we are fine and our application doesn't get rejected since we had one check for all the applications.
Please reply. Thanks a lot.
Gurus. Please reply. Thanks a lot.
more...
pictures Selena Gomez - Off the chain
SAPGURU
07-11 03:12 PM
Gurus,
Here is my situation.
Labor filed with company A in April 2006 and I-140 EB2 approved in May 2007. Could not file I-485 last year due to personal reasons.
Changed the Job to company B in Sep 2007.Company B filed PERM EB2 in Feb 2008 and got approved in Aril 2008. I-140 filed in June 2008 with priority date recapture request and still pending.
My 6th year of H1B is expiring in March 2009.
My question is, can I file my I-485 based on my previously approved EB2 I140.
What should be best approach for me? Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Here is my situation.
Labor filed with company A in April 2006 and I-140 EB2 approved in May 2007. Could not file I-485 last year due to personal reasons.
Changed the Job to company B in Sep 2007.Company B filed PERM EB2 in Feb 2008 and got approved in Aril 2008. I-140 filed in June 2008 with priority date recapture request and still pending.
My 6th year of H1B is expiring in March 2009.
My question is, can I file my I-485 based on my previously approved EB2 I140.
What should be best approach for me? Any help will be greatly appreciated.
dresses pm Who+says+selena+gomez+
nagio
01-08 07:31 AM
Six weeks it is. Sorry I said 7 weeks.
I just replied in the other thread too.
My wife went for her H1B stamping at HYD on Nov 23rd of 2009. Got 221g pink slip. Submitted response on Nov 25th of 2009. Got her Visa approval on Jan 4th 2010. May be all the holidays in between delayed more by a week or two. Also US consulate say each case is unique in terms of time to get processed. She works for university in bio-tech. Hope this helps.
I just replied in the other thread too.
My wife went for her H1B stamping at HYD on Nov 23rd of 2009. Got 221g pink slip. Submitted response on Nov 25th of 2009. Got her Visa approval on Jan 4th 2010. May be all the holidays in between delayed more by a week or two. Also US consulate say each case is unique in terms of time to get processed. She works for university in bio-tech. Hope this helps.
more...
makeup download selena gomez songs.
skd
01-12 02:17 PM
Skd, it was nice of you .. I gave you green :)
God Bless everyone and everywhere.
God Bless everyone and everywhere.
girlfriend heart of a Selena Gomez.
cal_dood
12-10 04:17 PM
Babson FastTrack MBA (http://cmweb.babson.edu/MBA/progrms/fasttrack.aspx) is a very good blended learning program if you are in the New England or Portland, OR area.
Please share the information on various Master degrees that you have done/doing/planning to do along with the University/school name and website information...
Please share the information on various Master degrees that you have done/doing/planning to do along with the University/school name and website information...
hairstyles More by Selena Gomez amp; the
desi3933
07-07 06:18 PM
Gurus, need a lil help clarifying issue in GC process.
I've a question regarding location of work place for a H1B employee filing GC process.
I've learnt that either after filing I-140 or I-485 stage, one should maintain as an employee at the same job position(job description as mentioned in LC) and also the geographical location. I've learnt instances where if an employee is half way through (lets say approved labor or I-140) his GC process has to start all over if he had to move to another branch of the same company in another city/state.
Incorrect. Current location has NOTHING to do with GC job location which for a future job that one need to start AFTER I-485/CP is approved. One can be doing job in NYC and have GC job for Chicago. Probably the best case is when LC mentions "anywhere in USA".
Is this true? I might be wrong about the information above but I'm concerned as being consultant, I might have to move to a different city or state if I find a better project and am contemplating whether this would be an issue in future for my green card.
If I'm right, employer has to file LCA for prevailing wage for current city I'm residing now. What will be the process incase I've to move to another city/state.
I'd really appreciate if someone who has better official info or gone through this can clarify my queries so ppl like me can be better informed.
Thanks in advance.
The current job location should be same as stated in LCA for your current H1. If your LCA says Chicago and you are in Dallas then you are NOT in valid H1-B status and consider consulting an attorney for legal advice.
Out of Status > 180 days is one good enough ground to dny I-485 application. For more details on "out of status" scenarios, please refer to my old posts.
_________________
Not a legal advice
I've a question regarding location of work place for a H1B employee filing GC process.
I've learnt that either after filing I-140 or I-485 stage, one should maintain as an employee at the same job position(job description as mentioned in LC) and also the geographical location. I've learnt instances where if an employee is half way through (lets say approved labor or I-140) his GC process has to start all over if he had to move to another branch of the same company in another city/state.
Incorrect. Current location has NOTHING to do with GC job location which for a future job that one need to start AFTER I-485/CP is approved. One can be doing job in NYC and have GC job for Chicago. Probably the best case is when LC mentions "anywhere in USA".
Is this true? I might be wrong about the information above but I'm concerned as being consultant, I might have to move to a different city or state if I find a better project and am contemplating whether this would be an issue in future for my green card.
If I'm right, employer has to file LCA for prevailing wage for current city I'm residing now. What will be the process incase I've to move to another city/state.
I'd really appreciate if someone who has better official info or gone through this can clarify my queries so ppl like me can be better informed.
Thanks in advance.
The current job location should be same as stated in LCA for your current H1. If your LCA says Chicago and you are in Dallas then you are NOT in valid H1-B status and consider consulting an attorney for legal advice.
Out of Status > 180 days is one good enough ground to dny I-485 application. For more details on "out of status" scenarios, please refer to my old posts.
_________________
Not a legal advice
sledge_hammer
02-07 07:46 PM
Just put in my year.
When you sign for membership, there is a question you answer about EB category and PD, so I guess all 8600+ members have that. I mean we already have the information and most of the members seem to be in S/W.
Is there anyway we can use this information thats in out database already, to come up with numbers? I assume that it should be do-able, however I am practically ignorant when it comes to computers. I mean I can use word and surf on the net, but thats it, but among all the experts we have here, maybe someone can work something out.
The admin will be able to answer this ....
When you sign for membership, there is a question you answer about EB category and PD, so I guess all 8600+ members have that. I mean we already have the information and most of the members seem to be in S/W.
Is there anyway we can use this information thats in out database already, to come up with numbers? I assume that it should be do-able, however I am practically ignorant when it comes to computers. I mean I can use word and surf on the net, but thats it, but among all the experts we have here, maybe someone can work something out.
The admin will be able to answer this ....
GooblyWoobly
07-18 07:00 PM
read the last paragraph of the link you posted
Adjustment applications and ancillary benefits – The new application fee for an I-485 is a package fee that includes associated EAD and advance parole applications. Thus, if you file an I-485 with the fee listed above, while you will still need to submit applications for an EAD and advance parole, you will not need to pay a separate fee so long as your adjustment application is pending. However, if you filed your I-485 before this fee change, to apply for or renew your EAD or advance parole, you must file a new application with the new fee for those applications.
Thanks. Clear as day!! This sucks.
This meand all the people here filing in July will have to shell out 340$ for EAD and 305$ for AP each year.
Can someone answer Q2?
Adjustment applications and ancillary benefits – The new application fee for an I-485 is a package fee that includes associated EAD and advance parole applications. Thus, if you file an I-485 with the fee listed above, while you will still need to submit applications for an EAD and advance parole, you will not need to pay a separate fee so long as your adjustment application is pending. However, if you filed your I-485 before this fee change, to apply for or renew your EAD or advance parole, you must file a new application with the new fee for those applications.
Thanks. Clear as day!! This sucks.
This meand all the people here filing in July will have to shell out 340$ for EAD and 305$ for AP each year.
Can someone answer Q2?
No comments:
Post a Comment