cparbelle
06-15 11:59 PM
Hello!
My case:
H1B current until Jan 2010
Nationality: French
PERM approved last April
The lawyer is planning to file this week for i131-i765-i485 (target is wednesday)
Would it be ok for me to travel abroad next week, or are there some travel restrictions after we file the forms?
Do we need an official receipt from USCIS before I can leave the US, or before I came back from the US, or any other restrictions?
Would some of you know?
:)
Thanks!!
celine
My case:
H1B current until Jan 2010
Nationality: French
PERM approved last April
The lawyer is planning to file this week for i131-i765-i485 (target is wednesday)
Would it be ok for me to travel abroad next week, or are there some travel restrictions after we file the forms?
Do we need an official receipt from USCIS before I can leave the US, or before I came back from the US, or any other restrictions?
Would some of you know?
:)
Thanks!!
celine
wallpaper zod1.jpg
fide_champ
05-22 03:27 PM
Hi Friends,
I have approved I-140 (PD Sep,2007) but recently my H1 extension was denied so had to come on H4, so now what will happen to my GC, do I have to start from scratch OR my I-140 is still valid once I come back on H1 (with different employer).
Please respond
why was your H1-extension denied? If your employer supports, you can still file I-485 but he has to hold on to it till the date becomes current.
I have approved I-140 (PD Sep,2007) but recently my H1 extension was denied so had to come on H4, so now what will happen to my GC, do I have to start from scratch OR my I-140 is still valid once I come back on H1 (with different employer).
Please respond
why was your H1-extension denied? If your employer supports, you can still file I-485 but he has to hold on to it till the date becomes current.
Blog Feeds
07-02 04:30 PM
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a unit of the Department of Homeland Security, said that it had begun an audit of 652 U.S. companies to verify whether their employees were eligible to work. Violations could lead to fines, as well as civil and criminal charges.
The Obama administration announced a crackdown on Wednesday on hundreds of companies suspected of employing illegal immigrants, signaling a shift in strategy: going after employers instead of workers.
However, it is yet to know what steps the government would pursue if it verified that an employer had hired illegal workers, or how severe penalties might be. It remains to be seen how much pressure the new policy could put on employers. Focus is on the eminent cases of employers who hire undocumented workers, and sometimes even assist in falsifying their paperwork to avoid detection.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/immigration_crackdown_shifts_f.html)
The Obama administration announced a crackdown on Wednesday on hundreds of companies suspected of employing illegal immigrants, signaling a shift in strategy: going after employers instead of workers.
However, it is yet to know what steps the government would pursue if it verified that an employer had hired illegal workers, or how severe penalties might be. It remains to be seen how much pressure the new policy could put on employers. Focus is on the eminent cases of employers who hire undocumented workers, and sometimes even assist in falsifying their paperwork to avoid detection.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/immigration_crackdown_shifts_f.html)
2011 The new promo for Second
anindya1234
07-02 06:52 AM
For item 16 what should be the CFR code: is it (c)(9) or (c)(0)(9), since there are 3 parentheses...please help!!!!
more...
simple.life
12-23 09:56 PM
One of the ways to show recruitment activity is do to "employee referral program" which allows employees to submit candidates for the job.
chanduy9
07-03 03:09 PM
http://digg.com/politics/Rep_Lofgren_Issues_Statement_on_Updated_Visa_Bulle tin
This is good news..some one responded...if we send flowers to USICS it will make more impact....
just my idea...
This is good news..some one responded...if we send flowers to USICS it will make more impact....
just my idea...
more...
Macaca
10-14 09:50 AM
G.O.P. Lawmakers Voice Their Unease (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/washington/14repubs.html) By CARL HULSE | New York Times, October 14, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 � Members of the White House communications team invited their Capitol Hill counterparts down to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the other day to see how Republican morale was holding up in Congress. The answer: Not so well.
Under fierce attack on children�s health insurance, beset by politically inconvenient retirements and uncertain if another scandal lurks around the corner, Congressional Republicans are feeling a bit under siege as even one of their former leaders predicts 2008 could be a Democratic year.
�We are not happy, no doubt about it,� said one of the senior Republican Congressional aides who attended the Oct. 5 meeting at the White House and would talk about the internal session only without being identified by name.
The twist is that the issue Republicans had feared most in the fall, the war in Iraq, has played out legislatively in their favor for the moment. In concert with the White House, Congressional Republicans say they were able to execute a strategy built around the testimony of General David H. Petraeus that allowed them to forestall Democratic calls for troop withdrawals and hold the party together on the war at a crucial turn.
But Republicans say they have lacked a similar cohesive plan to counter the Democratic assault over the children�s health insurance program that will be the subject of a veto override vote in the House on Thursday. President Bush�s veto of an expansion of that program and the strategic failure have exposed vulnerable Republicans to a backlash and allowed the party to be painted as uncaring.
As a result, Republicans have been scrambling for a health care response at a time when they had hoped to be pounding Democrats over excessive spending and re-establishing their image as the party of fiscal restraint.
�We need to be on offense,� said Representative Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican considering a Senate run.
At the White House, administration officials urged Congressional Republicans to try to remain positive and ride out the current turmoil. Ed Gillespie, a senior adviser to Mr. Bush, told the visitors, according to multiple accounts, that had Republicans sided with Democrats on the health program, they would have opened themselves to withering criticism from conservatives and been in a worse position than they are now.
But that was small solace to Congressional Republicans who worry that the White House does not fully appreciate their political difficulties and that Mr. Bush, who will not be on the ballot next year, has put them in harm�s way with his opposition to the children�s health care bill. Many Republicans say the White House should have been more aggressive early on in getting behind a counterproposal.
�The president has let the debate on health care down by not offering an alternative,� said Representative John R. Kuhl Jr., Republican of New York.
The children�s health insurance program is not the only development that has some Republicans down. A string of retirements in the Senate and House continued Friday with the decision by Representative Ralph Regula, a veteran Republican from Ohio, to step aside in a district where Democrats could be competitive.
Worried about increasing departures, the House leadership has been encouraging Representative Steve Pearce of New Mexico to forgo a run for the Senate and avoid opening a second Republican-held House seat in a state where Democrats are gaining strength. A fellow Republican, Representative Heather A. Wilson, is already running for the seat being vacated by Senator Pete V. Domenici.
Republicans also have lawmakers under criminal investigation in the House and the Senate, raising the possibility of a recurrence of the election-year corruption fallout that damaged Republicans in 2006.
And House Republicans could not have been happy with comments by the former majority leader Dick Armey, the ex-congressman from Texas. He predicted in an interview with The Gazette-Journal of Reno, Nev., that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, would be elected president next year and that �it is going to get worse before it gets better.�
Yet Republicans say Democrats have problems of their own, as shown by low public approval ratings for Congress. And the Republican leadership in the House and Senate was hoping it had struck on an effective message on the health care legislation, saying the refusal by Democrats to negotiate over the bill showed the party was more interested in political insurance than health coverage.
�While some on the left believe they are gaining political points by criticizing Republicans rather than legislating, at the end of the day their focus on politics may come at the expense of S-chip,� said Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the third-ranking Republican, referring to the State Children�s Health Insurance Program.
Other Republicans say the public is fed up with constant gamesmanship.
�They cannot stand the partisan bickering,� said Representative Judy Biggert, an Illinois Republican who is under fire for her opposition to the health care bill.
Congressional Republicans say their political fortunes have to improve at some point. They think the emergence of a party presidential nominee early next year will help get them out from under the shadow of the unpopular Bush White House. And while they might not be thrilled that Mr. Armey is predicting a Clinton victory, they believe her nomination could be a powerful motivator for Republican activists and donors.
Republicans are also banking on an overall anti-incumbent atmosphere. They point to a special House election to be held in Massachusetts on Tuesday, saying that Jim Ogonowski, a Republican running as a government outsider in a heavily Democratic district, has presented a stronger than anticipated challenge to Niki Tsongas, a well-connected Democrat.
�There is clearly an anti-Washington sentiment out there if you are a Republican challenger who can capitalize on it,� said Jessica Boulanger, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. �Democrats have reason to be worried.�
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 � Members of the White House communications team invited their Capitol Hill counterparts down to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the other day to see how Republican morale was holding up in Congress. The answer: Not so well.
Under fierce attack on children�s health insurance, beset by politically inconvenient retirements and uncertain if another scandal lurks around the corner, Congressional Republicans are feeling a bit under siege as even one of their former leaders predicts 2008 could be a Democratic year.
�We are not happy, no doubt about it,� said one of the senior Republican Congressional aides who attended the Oct. 5 meeting at the White House and would talk about the internal session only without being identified by name.
The twist is that the issue Republicans had feared most in the fall, the war in Iraq, has played out legislatively in their favor for the moment. In concert with the White House, Congressional Republicans say they were able to execute a strategy built around the testimony of General David H. Petraeus that allowed them to forestall Democratic calls for troop withdrawals and hold the party together on the war at a crucial turn.
But Republicans say they have lacked a similar cohesive plan to counter the Democratic assault over the children�s health insurance program that will be the subject of a veto override vote in the House on Thursday. President Bush�s veto of an expansion of that program and the strategic failure have exposed vulnerable Republicans to a backlash and allowed the party to be painted as uncaring.
As a result, Republicans have been scrambling for a health care response at a time when they had hoped to be pounding Democrats over excessive spending and re-establishing their image as the party of fiscal restraint.
�We need to be on offense,� said Representative Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican considering a Senate run.
At the White House, administration officials urged Congressional Republicans to try to remain positive and ride out the current turmoil. Ed Gillespie, a senior adviser to Mr. Bush, told the visitors, according to multiple accounts, that had Republicans sided with Democrats on the health program, they would have opened themselves to withering criticism from conservatives and been in a worse position than they are now.
But that was small solace to Congressional Republicans who worry that the White House does not fully appreciate their political difficulties and that Mr. Bush, who will not be on the ballot next year, has put them in harm�s way with his opposition to the children�s health care bill. Many Republicans say the White House should have been more aggressive early on in getting behind a counterproposal.
�The president has let the debate on health care down by not offering an alternative,� said Representative John R. Kuhl Jr., Republican of New York.
The children�s health insurance program is not the only development that has some Republicans down. A string of retirements in the Senate and House continued Friday with the decision by Representative Ralph Regula, a veteran Republican from Ohio, to step aside in a district where Democrats could be competitive.
Worried about increasing departures, the House leadership has been encouraging Representative Steve Pearce of New Mexico to forgo a run for the Senate and avoid opening a second Republican-held House seat in a state where Democrats are gaining strength. A fellow Republican, Representative Heather A. Wilson, is already running for the seat being vacated by Senator Pete V. Domenici.
Republicans also have lawmakers under criminal investigation in the House and the Senate, raising the possibility of a recurrence of the election-year corruption fallout that damaged Republicans in 2006.
And House Republicans could not have been happy with comments by the former majority leader Dick Armey, the ex-congressman from Texas. He predicted in an interview with The Gazette-Journal of Reno, Nev., that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, would be elected president next year and that �it is going to get worse before it gets better.�
Yet Republicans say Democrats have problems of their own, as shown by low public approval ratings for Congress. And the Republican leadership in the House and Senate was hoping it had struck on an effective message on the health care legislation, saying the refusal by Democrats to negotiate over the bill showed the party was more interested in political insurance than health coverage.
�While some on the left believe they are gaining political points by criticizing Republicans rather than legislating, at the end of the day their focus on politics may come at the expense of S-chip,� said Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the third-ranking Republican, referring to the State Children�s Health Insurance Program.
Other Republicans say the public is fed up with constant gamesmanship.
�They cannot stand the partisan bickering,� said Representative Judy Biggert, an Illinois Republican who is under fire for her opposition to the health care bill.
Congressional Republicans say their political fortunes have to improve at some point. They think the emergence of a party presidential nominee early next year will help get them out from under the shadow of the unpopular Bush White House. And while they might not be thrilled that Mr. Armey is predicting a Clinton victory, they believe her nomination could be a powerful motivator for Republican activists and donors.
Republicans are also banking on an overall anti-incumbent atmosphere. They point to a special House election to be held in Massachusetts on Tuesday, saying that Jim Ogonowski, a Republican running as a government outsider in a heavily Democratic district, has presented a stronger than anticipated challenge to Niki Tsongas, a well-connected Democrat.
�There is clearly an anti-Washington sentiment out there if you are a Republican challenger who can capitalize on it,� said Jessica Boulanger, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. �Democrats have reason to be worried.�
2010 The name of the artist is
gc_rip
06-14 01:15 AM
While filing I-485 do I have to choose which I-140 and PD to be used. Need your advise which one should I use,
1. I-140 approved with details as: PERM LC (EB3, PD Dec 2006).
2. I-140 pending (just filed) with details regular LC (EB3, PD Nov 2004).
Choices are:
A. Just file 485 with 140 with earlier PD(option2 ), and let both 140 and 485 continue.
B. File 485 with approved 140
C. Convert pending 140 into premium, and file 485. Is the extra $1000 justified for this?
Thanks in advance.
1. I-140 approved with details as: PERM LC (EB3, PD Dec 2006).
2. I-140 pending (just filed) with details regular LC (EB3, PD Nov 2004).
Choices are:
A. Just file 485 with 140 with earlier PD(option2 ), and let both 140 and 485 continue.
B. File 485 with approved 140
C. Convert pending 140 into premium, and file 485. Is the extra $1000 justified for this?
Thanks in advance.
more...
Preeti123
12-01 08:56 PM
Hi All,
I have got an RFE for my I-485 application. . I missed to complete a question (part3 and question #10) in I-485 form for which I got a request for evidence letter from USCIS. Can anyone has any template on how i should reply. Your help is much appreciated . Thanks in advance
--Preeti.
USCIS Letter:
-------------------------------------------
You did not properly complete part 3 question 10 of your form I-485 applicatio.
Question # 10: Are you under a final order of Civil Penalty for violating section 274C of the immigration and Nationality Act for use of
fraudulent documents or by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact, ever sought to procure, or procured, a visa, other documentation, entry into the United States or any immigration benefit.
Therefor submit an affidavit with your answer to this question a 'Yes' or 'No' response.
I have got an RFE for my I-485 application. . I missed to complete a question (part3 and question #10) in I-485 form for which I got a request for evidence letter from USCIS. Can anyone has any template on how i should reply. Your help is much appreciated . Thanks in advance
--Preeti.
USCIS Letter:
-------------------------------------------
You did not properly complete part 3 question 10 of your form I-485 applicatio.
Question # 10: Are you under a final order of Civil Penalty for violating section 274C of the immigration and Nationality Act for use of
fraudulent documents or by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact, ever sought to procure, or procured, a visa, other documentation, entry into the United States or any immigration benefit.
Therefor submit an affidavit with your answer to this question a 'Yes' or 'No' response.
hair Kelly Brook Makes Cycling Sexy
chanduv23
09-14 12:29 PM
For some known/unknown reason you may have decided not to do this. But lateron, you want to change your mind - but then you want to fight your desire - because you want to maintain your earlier decision and be strong on your earlier decision.
Please follow your heart and change your attitude. We at IV are your friends, there has been a lot of investement and strategy and planning.
Yes, we want you to realise - stop thinking and start acting
Please follow your heart and change your attitude. We at IV are your friends, there has been a lot of investement and strategy and planning.
Yes, we want you to realise - stop thinking and start acting
more...
mgarvey
08-06 08:08 AM
I can not find my old ead can i still file or what is the process.need help please
hot kk.jpg
amitga
06-05 04:49 PM
EB2 - ROW has 5000+ cases pending = No Spill over:(
more...
house Sexy Star Trek Dossier Gives
puriyu
09-15 10:47 AM
http://imminfo.com/library/calculatingvisabulletinmovementarticle.html
tattoo marionette-unit.jpg
kirupa
07-15 11:54 PM
Added :)
more...
pictures gemma_arterton_1.jpg
Macaca
02-18 06:55 PM
Some paras from In Majority, Democrats Run Hill Much as GOP Did (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701352.html).
Democrats pledged to bring courtesy to the Capitol when they assumed control of Congress last month. But from the start, the new majority used its muscle to force through its agenda in the House and sideline Republicans.
And after an initial burst of lawmaking, the Democratic juggernaut has kept on rolling.
Of nine major bills passed by the House since the 110th Congress began, Republicans have been allowed to make amendments to just one, a measure directing federal research into additives to biofuels. In the arcane world of Capitol Hill, where the majority dictates which legislation comes before the House and which dies on a shelf, the ability to offer amendments from the floor is one of the minority's few tools.
Last week, the strong-arming continued during the most important debate the Congress has faced yet -- the discussion about the Iraq war. Democrats initially said they would allow Republicans to propose one alternative to the resolution denouncing a troop buildup but, days later, they thought better of it.
And yet, significant numbers of House Republicans have voted along with Democrats on the legislation passed so far -- a fact that somewhat mutes criticism about iron-fisted tactics.
In the first weeks of the new Congress, however, Democrats bypassed the usual legislative committees, refused to allow any amendments and took their agenda straight to the floor for passage. They said they needed a clear path to pass a handful of popular measures that were the basis of their successful November campaign, including expanded money for stem cell research, an increase in the federal minimum wage and implementation of recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission.
Democrats said they would impose "regular order," the rules that permit the minority to participate more widely, in short order.
But even after passing their domestic agenda, Democratic leaders have continued to marginalize Republicans, preventing them from having a voice in legislation such as a bill to withhold federal pensions from lawmakers convicted of ethics felonies and a $463 billion bill to fund the federal government for the rest of this fiscal year.
Last week's debate on the Iraq war, culminating in its passage Friday by a vote of 246 to 182, was conducted under a "closed rule," which means Republicans could not offer alternatives. "I understand what they did on their agenda," said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). "But to do a closed rule on something like this is a huge mistake. We're talking about war and peace. You don't play politics with war."
While they did not allow amendments on the Iraq debate, the Democrats gave every member of the chamber five minutes to speak on the resolution -- an unprecedented amount of debate on a nonbinding resolution, according to Thomas E. Mann, a scholar at Brookings Institution. He said that is more than the Republicans offered Democrats when the GOP passed a resolution last spring supporting the war in Iraq.
Democrats pledged to bring courtesy to the Capitol when they assumed control of Congress last month. But from the start, the new majority used its muscle to force through its agenda in the House and sideline Republicans.
And after an initial burst of lawmaking, the Democratic juggernaut has kept on rolling.
Of nine major bills passed by the House since the 110th Congress began, Republicans have been allowed to make amendments to just one, a measure directing federal research into additives to biofuels. In the arcane world of Capitol Hill, where the majority dictates which legislation comes before the House and which dies on a shelf, the ability to offer amendments from the floor is one of the minority's few tools.
Last week, the strong-arming continued during the most important debate the Congress has faced yet -- the discussion about the Iraq war. Democrats initially said they would allow Republicans to propose one alternative to the resolution denouncing a troop buildup but, days later, they thought better of it.
And yet, significant numbers of House Republicans have voted along with Democrats on the legislation passed so far -- a fact that somewhat mutes criticism about iron-fisted tactics.
In the first weeks of the new Congress, however, Democrats bypassed the usual legislative committees, refused to allow any amendments and took their agenda straight to the floor for passage. They said they needed a clear path to pass a handful of popular measures that were the basis of their successful November campaign, including expanded money for stem cell research, an increase in the federal minimum wage and implementation of recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission.
Democrats said they would impose "regular order," the rules that permit the minority to participate more widely, in short order.
But even after passing their domestic agenda, Democratic leaders have continued to marginalize Republicans, preventing them from having a voice in legislation such as a bill to withhold federal pensions from lawmakers convicted of ethics felonies and a $463 billion bill to fund the federal government for the rest of this fiscal year.
Last week's debate on the Iraq war, culminating in its passage Friday by a vote of 246 to 182, was conducted under a "closed rule," which means Republicans could not offer alternatives. "I understand what they did on their agenda," said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). "But to do a closed rule on something like this is a huge mistake. We're talking about war and peace. You don't play politics with war."
While they did not allow amendments on the Iraq debate, the Democrats gave every member of the chamber five minutes to speak on the resolution -- an unprecedented amount of debate on a nonbinding resolution, according to Thomas E. Mann, a scholar at Brookings Institution. He said that is more than the Republicans offered Democrats when the GOP passed a resolution last spring supporting the war in Iraq.
dresses Here#39;s a few new images for
pm1010
03-04 10:23 AM
Folks,
Does this really help - Writing letters to senators & congressman to expediate the adjudication process ? Please share your experience if you did so?
A friend of mine advised and I am not sure if it's worth a try. Can there be any negative impact?
Folks,
Does this really help - Writing letters to senators & congressman to expediate the adjudication process ? Please share your experience if you did so?
A friend of mine advised and I am not sure if it's worth a try. Can there be any negative impact?
Does this really help - Writing letters to senators & congressman to expediate the adjudication process ? Please share your experience if you did so?
A friend of mine advised and I am not sure if it's worth a try. Can there be any negative impact?
Folks,
Does this really help - Writing letters to senators & congressman to expediate the adjudication process ? Please share your experience if you did so?
A friend of mine advised and I am not sure if it's worth a try. Can there be any negative impact?
more...
makeup real_batmobile.jpg
vicente
10-11 09:08 PM
Good question. I'm not sure if the two-year home residency requirement applies to tourist visas.
But if your J-1 program isn't subject to the two year residency requirement, I don't see why there would be a problem.
Warning: I am not a lawyer.
But if your J-1 program isn't subject to the two year residency requirement, I don't see why there would be a problem.
Warning: I am not a lawyer.
girlfriend Related
casinoroyale
03-13 09:50 PM
What is I-140 Interfiling mean? :confused:
hairstyles ellenpagepicture_109.jpg
pappu
01-02 12:19 PM
Thanks a lot I am sendiing you a PM right away
99mutd08
08-10 11:25 AM
Lol
pr_001
04-12 05:23 PM
Hi,
I am transferring my H1B from Employer A to B.
With Employer A, I had my recent H1B extension approved till Oct 31 2011.
I am going to have the period on this transfer as June 1 2009 - Oct 31 2011. (Which will 6 yrs in total on H1B status for me).
I have question on form I-129, "Requested Action" section.
Out of the following options, which one should I "Check":
1. Extend the stay of the person(s) since they now hold this status.
2. Amend the stay of the person(s) since they now hold this status.
Please let me know.
Thanks,
Prem.
I am transferring my H1B from Employer A to B.
With Employer A, I had my recent H1B extension approved till Oct 31 2011.
I am going to have the period on this transfer as June 1 2009 - Oct 31 2011. (Which will 6 yrs in total on H1B status for me).
I have question on form I-129, "Requested Action" section.
Out of the following options, which one should I "Check":
1. Extend the stay of the person(s) since they now hold this status.
2. Amend the stay of the person(s) since they now hold this status.
Please let me know.
Thanks,
Prem.
No comments:
Post a Comment