raysaikat
04-28 02:06 AM
Dear Attorneys,
My freind is about to file I-140 application but his family is in India, does his family needs to be here during I-140 filing? if no when does the family need to be here ?
Please reply.
Thanks
At the time of I-485 filing (assuming that he is not choosing CP).
My freind is about to file I-140 application but his family is in India, does his family needs to be here during I-140 filing? if no when does the family need to be here ?
Please reply.
Thanks
At the time of I-485 filing (assuming that he is not choosing CP).
wallpaper Portraits Imaginaire 26.3.69
haroontabrez
10-29 03:27 PM
Will I receive the actual AP document Or my attorney?
(My attorney filed for my AP).
Thanks.
(My attorney filed for my AP).
Thanks.
vinzak
01-15 04:11 PM
There shouldn't be a problem. There's your DOB, A# and photograph on the card to verify that the person is actually you.
But I think you should still file for a correction.
But I think you should still file for a correction.
2011 Picasso#39;s Surrealism Has
sjnh_li
07-28 12:44 AM
Hi Folks,
I have a unique situation. Well.. I have been working for a Company A that is owned by my uncle. Iam on H1B in 2nd year and I have my I-140 approved 1 month back. Now I got a new job in another company B with 3 times the current pay of mine. I want to change to the company B.
My uncle said that he will continuing the process of my GC application, under EB2 in his company A. But I want to transfer my H1B only to the new company B, so I can get into the company B's payroll and get benefits. Can someone suggest how we can handle this without messing up with the current GC process with company A. Does changing to company B under new H1B impacts my GC processing. Can we show that the company A is processing my GC under future employement, though I worked for company A before..
Please advise the consequences and my options.. I badly want to work for company B..without stopping my GC processing with company A..
I appreciate your help in advance
I have a unique situation. Well.. I have been working for a Company A that is owned by my uncle. Iam on H1B in 2nd year and I have my I-140 approved 1 month back. Now I got a new job in another company B with 3 times the current pay of mine. I want to change to the company B.
My uncle said that he will continuing the process of my GC application, under EB2 in his company A. But I want to transfer my H1B only to the new company B, so I can get into the company B's payroll and get benefits. Can someone suggest how we can handle this without messing up with the current GC process with company A. Does changing to company B under new H1B impacts my GC processing. Can we show that the company A is processing my GC under future employement, though I worked for company A before..
Please advise the consequences and my options.. I badly want to work for company B..without stopping my GC processing with company A..
I appreciate your help in advance
more...
genuser
02-02 12:01 AM
I held an H1 B Visa from 2005 to 2008. I worked in the US from for 1 year from 2006 to 2007. I had to return to my home country and my visa expired in 2008. I have been out of US for more than a year and now I am on H4 status (not employed currently) and I would like to know the below:
1. Am I eligible to renew my previous H1 visa. Will my visa petition be considered as an extension of my previous H1 B?
2. Will my application fall under the cap exempt or will I be subject to cap limit
3. If the above fail, what other options do I have?
Pls guide.
Thanks.
1. Am I eligible to renew my previous H1 visa. Will my visa petition be considered as an extension of my previous H1 B?
2. Will my application fall under the cap exempt or will I be subject to cap limit
3. If the above fail, what other options do I have?
Pls guide.
Thanks.
qualified_trash
10-23 12:28 PM
gc_maine2,
I think you have your question posted on the incorrect forum.
thanks,
QT
I think you have your question posted on the incorrect forum.
thanks,
QT
more...
ameryki
10-15 11:22 PM
Wife need to go to India for emergency. Advance Parole expired. Can she already leave while I apply AP now ? Or does she have to be in country until we get it ? Can i apply now and send it to her once i get it here ?
How much time normally it takes if we apply now ?
she has to be in country until she gets it
How much time normally it takes if we apply now ?
she has to be in country until she gets it
2010 Picasso self-portraits
Blog Feeds
07-29 06:10 AM
On July 28, Federal District Court Judge Susan Bolton granted a preliminary injunction against major sections of Arizona�s new immigration law which were scheduled to become effective the following day. In a 36-page decision, Judge Bolton found that the United States is �likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the following sections of S.B.1070 are preempted by Federal law�: * �requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/07/judge-overturns-arizona-law.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/07/judge-overturns-arizona-law.html)
more...
Dhundhun
10-14 02:49 AM
Category India Most Other Countries
F1 1 May 2002 1 May 2002
FX 15 July 2001 15 July 2001
F2A 8 Februrary 2004 8 February 2004
F2B 15 January 2000 15 January 2000
F3 1 July 2000 1 July 2000
F4 22 July 1997 15 November 1997
E1 Current Current
E2 1 June 2003 Current
E3 1 October 2001 1 May 2005
EW 15 Janurary 2003 15 Janurary 2003
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
F1 1 May 2002 1 May 2002
FX 15 July 2001 15 July 2001
F2A 8 Februrary 2004 8 February 2004
F2B 15 January 2000 15 January 2000
F3 1 July 2000 1 July 2000
F4 22 July 1997 15 November 1997
E1 Current Current
E2 1 June 2003 Current
E3 1 October 2001 1 May 2005
EW 15 Janurary 2003 15 Janurary 2003
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
hair These are portraits of women
aspireus
05-19 03:57 PM
My I 140 approved under Eb3 if i want to change my job and my employer is willing to do in EB2 can I use my old PD from I140 EB3 ?
more...
Macaca
09-27 11:40 AM
Following Bush Over a Cliff (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602067.html) By David S. Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 27, 2007
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
hot Pablo Picasso, Portrait of
crystal
02-14 12:19 PM
One can contiue to stay using I-485 receipt without valid I-94. afasik I-797 can be used only if you filed H1 extention after you came back on parolee.
If a person travels on AP, he will get a new PAROLE I-94 which shows expiry date of 1 year from the day he entered on AP. Can the person stay in US AFTER that expiry date and continue working using a valid I-797?
If a person travels on AP, he will get a new PAROLE I-94 which shows expiry date of 1 year from the day he entered on AP. Can the person stay in US AFTER that expiry date and continue working using a valid I-797?
more...
house The Women of Pablo Picasso
nonimmi
01-11 03:50 PM
Here you see some of the early adopters of AC21 rule asking similar questions during 2002-2003.
http://www.immigrationportal.com/archive/index.php/f-121.html
http://www.immigrationportal.com/archive/index.php/f-121.html
tattoo by Pablo Picasso middot; Portrait Of
pan123
08-30 06:29 PM
When did you filed? From what service center? When was last finger print done? and what's your priority date?
more...
pictures picasso portraits gallery. at
dpp
10-25 07:28 PM
Hope this bill helps us !!!:confused:
http://www.immigration-law.com/
It has more harm than good. H1B fees increased too much. I hope they will remove this H1B part from the final bill. Anyway Bush is ready to veto this bill for sure.
http://www.immigration-law.com/
It has more harm than good. H1B fees increased too much. I hope they will remove this H1B part from the final bill. Anyway Bush is ready to veto this bill for sure.
dresses A portrait by Pablo Picasso
varesident
01-07 11:37 AM
I am planning to visit India soon. I have my AP and an expired F1 visa.
I haven't been to India since I got my H1 approved; so I don't have an H1 visa stamp on my passport at all. My I-797 is approved until 2010.
Can you please advise if I should get my passport stamped with my H1 or should I be ok with my AP?
Thanks.
I haven't been to India since I got my H1 approved; so I don't have an H1 visa stamp on my passport at all. My I-797 is approved until 2010.
Can you please advise if I should get my passport stamped with my H1 or should I be ok with my AP?
Thanks.
more...
makeup Pablo Picasso. Portrait of
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 Picasso: Imaginary Portraits
Macaca
08-15 07:28 PM
Honest and Open Thievery (http://www.reason.com/news/show/121947.html) The limits of Congress's ethics reforms By Jacob Sullum, August 15, 2007
In a letter posted at Congress.org, a constituent praises Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) for his "brilliant intellect." As evidence, Mitchell's admirer cites the congressman's vote for the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.
The margin by which the act passed�411 to 8 in the House, 83 to 14 in the Senate�takes some of the shine off Mitchell's brilliance. Still, he's probably smart enough to realize what his colleagues evidently understand: Congress's new honesty and openness are not what they're cracked up to be.
The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act requires that special appropriations added by individual legislators be listed in an online database at least 48 hours before they come to a vote. Critics such as Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) complained bitterly about a loophole: Congressional leaders can certify that a bill contains no earmarks, and there's no way to challenge that determination.
A deeper problem is that publicity does not deter wasteful, parochial spending that legislators want to publicize. Consider what happened last month when Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) challenged a $100,000 appropriation for a prison museum near Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
The earmark's sponsor, Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.), defended the honor of Leavenworth County, bragging that "we probably have more prisons...than any other county in the United States." She indignantly added that "the local residents are proud of their heritage and rightly so," since Leavenworth has hosted the likes of George "Machine Gun" Kelly and Nazi spy Fritz Duquesne.
The House approved Boyda's earmark by a vote of 317 to 112. Later she told The New York Times, "Democracy is a contact sport, and I'm not going to be shy about asking for money for my community."
So far this year the Democratic House has approved spending bills that include some 6,500 earmarks, not quite keeping pace with the Republicans' record of nearly 16,000 in 2005 but more than twice the whole-year total of a decade ago. Far from shaming legislators into fiscal restraint, the Times reports, "the new transparency has raised the value of earmarks as a measure of members' clout" and "intensified competition for projects by letting each member see exactly how many everyone else is receiving."
Congressional shamelessness likewise may undermine the goals of the new Senate ban on anonymous holds. A hold occurs when a senator refuses to let a bill or nomination proceed by unanimous consent, thereby requiring the measure's supporters to muster 60 votes to allow consideration of the measure.
Holds obviously can be used for purposes that offend supporters of limited government�to extort pork, for example, or obstruct fiscal reform. But any tool that blocks legislation is apt to do more good than harm. Notably, the hold's defenders include fiscal conservatives such as Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) as well as big spenders such as Robert Byrd (D-W.V.).
Still, it's hard to find fault with the new requirement that senators publicly identify themselves and state their reasons when they block legislation. We just shouldn't expect too much as a result of this openness. As with earmarks, legislators don't try to hide their actions when they're proud of them, even if they shouldn't be. Interestingly, no one put a secret hold on the secret hold ban.
Transparency may also prove overrated as a way of preventing lobbyists from influencing legislators by arranging campaign contributions. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act requires public disclosure of "bundles" totaling $15,000 or more in a six-month period. Like the new attention to earmarks, highlighting these donations may simply spur competition, as K Street's denizens strive to keep up with their neighbors.
Although honesty and openness are surely preferable to dishonesty and secrecy (in politics, at least), they're not an adequate solution to a government that does too much and is therefore a magnet for people seeking gifts and favors. If a pickpocket becomes a mugger, he becomes more open and honest, but that doesn't make him more admirable.
In a letter posted at Congress.org, a constituent praises Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) for his "brilliant intellect." As evidence, Mitchell's admirer cites the congressman's vote for the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.
The margin by which the act passed�411 to 8 in the House, 83 to 14 in the Senate�takes some of the shine off Mitchell's brilliance. Still, he's probably smart enough to realize what his colleagues evidently understand: Congress's new honesty and openness are not what they're cracked up to be.
The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act requires that special appropriations added by individual legislators be listed in an online database at least 48 hours before they come to a vote. Critics such as Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) complained bitterly about a loophole: Congressional leaders can certify that a bill contains no earmarks, and there's no way to challenge that determination.
A deeper problem is that publicity does not deter wasteful, parochial spending that legislators want to publicize. Consider what happened last month when Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) challenged a $100,000 appropriation for a prison museum near Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
The earmark's sponsor, Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.), defended the honor of Leavenworth County, bragging that "we probably have more prisons...than any other county in the United States." She indignantly added that "the local residents are proud of their heritage and rightly so," since Leavenworth has hosted the likes of George "Machine Gun" Kelly and Nazi spy Fritz Duquesne.
The House approved Boyda's earmark by a vote of 317 to 112. Later she told The New York Times, "Democracy is a contact sport, and I'm not going to be shy about asking for money for my community."
So far this year the Democratic House has approved spending bills that include some 6,500 earmarks, not quite keeping pace with the Republicans' record of nearly 16,000 in 2005 but more than twice the whole-year total of a decade ago. Far from shaming legislators into fiscal restraint, the Times reports, "the new transparency has raised the value of earmarks as a measure of members' clout" and "intensified competition for projects by letting each member see exactly how many everyone else is receiving."
Congressional shamelessness likewise may undermine the goals of the new Senate ban on anonymous holds. A hold occurs when a senator refuses to let a bill or nomination proceed by unanimous consent, thereby requiring the measure's supporters to muster 60 votes to allow consideration of the measure.
Holds obviously can be used for purposes that offend supporters of limited government�to extort pork, for example, or obstruct fiscal reform. But any tool that blocks legislation is apt to do more good than harm. Notably, the hold's defenders include fiscal conservatives such as Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) as well as big spenders such as Robert Byrd (D-W.V.).
Still, it's hard to find fault with the new requirement that senators publicly identify themselves and state their reasons when they block legislation. We just shouldn't expect too much as a result of this openness. As with earmarks, legislators don't try to hide their actions when they're proud of them, even if they shouldn't be. Interestingly, no one put a secret hold on the secret hold ban.
Transparency may also prove overrated as a way of preventing lobbyists from influencing legislators by arranging campaign contributions. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act requires public disclosure of "bundles" totaling $15,000 or more in a six-month period. Like the new attention to earmarks, highlighting these donations may simply spur competition, as K Street's denizens strive to keep up with their neighbors.
Although honesty and openness are surely preferable to dishonesty and secrecy (in politics, at least), they're not an adequate solution to a government that does too much and is therefore a magnet for people seeking gifts and favors. If a pickpocket becomes a mugger, he becomes more open and honest, but that doesn't make him more admirable.
hairstyles picasso portraits for kids.
looivy
09-26 03:08 PM
Has anybody who filed I-485 on July 2nd to Vermont Service center directly recieved his/her Receipt notices.
Thanks.
Thanks.
black_logs
01-22 04:38 PM
People from Arizona please sign up here
immig4me
07-26 10:02 AM
Connect the World: Blog Archive - How has immigration affected your life? � - CNN.com Blogs (http://connecttheworld.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/26/does-immigration-help-or-hinder/)
Are you an immigrant? How have you found your transition from one country to another? Do you think the majority of people are welcoming? Do you oppose immigration? Should there be tougher regulations in your country?
Please leave your comments below - we would also love to use your comments on air, so please let us know if you are interested in appearing on CNN's Connect the World. And don't forgot to let us know where you're writing from.
Are you an immigrant? How have you found your transition from one country to another? Do you think the majority of people are welcoming? Do you oppose immigration? Should there be tougher regulations in your country?
Please leave your comments below - we would also love to use your comments on air, so please let us know if you are interested in appearing on CNN's Connect the World. And don't forgot to let us know where you're writing from.
No comments:
Post a Comment