kirupa
03-09 09:14 PM
Added!
wallpaper The Gold Rush, Gold Mining in
patiently_waiting
04-16 05:42 AM
Hi.
My Wife is currently in H4 Visa and in US now. She has total of 11 years IT experience. She lastly worked with a Company X from May 2004 to May 2008 for about 4 years. Currently she is not an employee of Company X and also not working anywhere.
If the same Company X gives an US offer, Is it possible for the Company X to file L1 visa for her so that she can start working for that company immediately ? ( I have read in immigration forums that the L1 Visa Eligibility is that the person should have worked for that company for atleast 1 year within the last 3 years)
Experts, Can you pls give your opinion and suggestion on this ? If so, how long the process takes place for transfering from H4 to L1 visa ?
Thanks alot.
My Wife is currently in H4 Visa and in US now. She has total of 11 years IT experience. She lastly worked with a Company X from May 2004 to May 2008 for about 4 years. Currently she is not an employee of Company X and also not working anywhere.
If the same Company X gives an US offer, Is it possible for the Company X to file L1 visa for her so that she can start working for that company immediately ? ( I have read in immigration forums that the L1 Visa Eligibility is that the person should have worked for that company for atleast 1 year within the last 3 years)
Experts, Can you pls give your opinion and suggestion on this ? If so, how long the process takes place for transfering from H4 to L1 visa ?
Thanks alot.
clif
06-28 12:57 PM
My wife filed I-539 for changing status from H-4 to F-1 at end of May. We have the receipt and the case is now pending. Is it possible for her to request cancellation of this change of status and continue in H-4 status? If so, does anyone know how to ask USCIS for this?
2011 Get ready for the rush and
jetflyer
05-07 08:23 AM
Friends,
I am starting this thread for the people who are Greencard Holders and not married. Please share some thoughts for bringing their spouse here.
IV can help in this matter.
If all visa holders and citizens can bring their spouse instantly then why GC holder have to wait for many years after getting GC after many years.
Thanks
Jet
I am starting this thread for the people who are Greencard Holders and not married. Please share some thoughts for bringing their spouse here.
IV can help in this matter.
If all visa holders and citizens can bring their spouse instantly then why GC holder have to wait for many years after getting GC after many years.
Thanks
Jet
more...
newuser
08-13 10:46 AM
^^
Blog Feeds
12-10 05:20 PM
On November 27, the USCIS announced that they had received 58,900 H-1B petitions toward the 65,000 cap. So there are 6,100 numbers remaining, correct? (Update: By December 4, the USCIS had received 61,100 H-1B petitions toward the 65,000 cap.) Not exactly. We have Free Trade Agreements with both Singapore and Chile which set aside 6,800 "H-1B1" numbers for nationals of those countries. Do the math: 65,000 minus 6,800 equals 58,200. This means that the agency has received 700 more H-1B petitions than it can approve. Why then is the USCIS still accepting H-1B petitions? Because some of the petitions that...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/12/why-uscis-is-still-accepting-h1b-petitions.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/12/why-uscis-is-still-accepting-h1b-petitions.html)
more...
sampath
04-13 09:34 AM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4022
2010 tattoo the California Gold
EB2_Jun03_dude
01-09 10:41 AM
I am planning to apply for my EAD/AP renewal. This would be my 4th EAD/AP application, but this is the first time I am planning to e-file.
My I-485 was filed with VSC but later got transfered to TSC. While my wife's I-485 is transfered to Newark, NJ USCIS local office. Given this situation where should be the supporting documents be sent ?
1) VSC: since all my previous EAD/AP were applied there
2) TSC: since my case is currently pending here.
3) what @ my wife's EAD/AP renewal? here case is pending at local USCIS office.
:confused: :confused:
My I-485 was filed with VSC but later got transfered to TSC. While my wife's I-485 is transfered to Newark, NJ USCIS local office. Given this situation where should be the supporting documents be sent ?
1) VSC: since all my previous EAD/AP were applied there
2) TSC: since my case is currently pending here.
3) what @ my wife's EAD/AP renewal? here case is pending at local USCIS office.
:confused: :confused:
more...
sripk
07-17 04:12 AM
Hi,
I received RFE on my 485 for I94 copy. My situation is below
I travelled to Tijuana, Mexico from San Diego by road to request
for new I94 at the US Port of Entry at San Ysidro, Tijuana as my old I94
was issued only until PP expiry date but since i already had a valid I94 on H1B notice, The officer didn't issue a new white I94 card even though i requested for one. Also, The officer took my earlier old white I94 card, so i don't have one with me now though i have a copy
of it. Also USCIS is asking for a detailed explanation as to why new I94 was not issued at POE. please advise on how to respond to this RFE
I received RFE on my 485 for I94 copy. My situation is below
I travelled to Tijuana, Mexico from San Diego by road to request
for new I94 at the US Port of Entry at San Ysidro, Tijuana as my old I94
was issued only until PP expiry date but since i already had a valid I94 on H1B notice, The officer didn't issue a new white I94 card even though i requested for one. Also, The officer took my earlier old white I94 card, so i don't have one with me now though i have a copy
of it. Also USCIS is asking for a detailed explanation as to why new I94 was not issued at POE. please advise on how to respond to this RFE
hair The Arctic map is believed to
sounakc
11-14 04:20 PM
Dear friends,
My current H1B visa is expiring on 1st April 2009. These are the following details:
Petition No: LIN-06-086-xxxxx
valid from 2nd april 2006 to 1st april 2009
I have already applied for H1B renewal and got approval. These are the following details from my new approval:
Petition No: WAC-09-010-xxxxx
valid from 2nd april 2009 to 1st april 2012
I am visiting india around end of Nov 2008. Can I get my passport stamped while I am in india ?
I am getting married in Nov 2008 and I want to bring her back with me in dec 2008. Under which petition I should file her H4?
cheers
sounak
My current H1B visa is expiring on 1st April 2009. These are the following details:
Petition No: LIN-06-086-xxxxx
valid from 2nd april 2006 to 1st april 2009
I have already applied for H1B renewal and got approval. These are the following details from my new approval:
Petition No: WAC-09-010-xxxxx
valid from 2nd april 2009 to 1st april 2012
I am visiting india around end of Nov 2008. Can I get my passport stamped while I am in india ?
I am getting married in Nov 2008 and I want to bring her back with me in dec 2008. Under which petition I should file her H4?
cheers
sounak
more...
Blog Feeds
08-09 10:40 PM
USCIS has reminded all applicants for Adjustment of Status, Asylum, Legalization and Temporary Protected Status to obtain an Advance Parole (AP) document before traveling abroad. AP allows an applicant to re-enter the U.S. after traveling abroad.
In order to obtain Advance Parole, individuals must file Form I-131, Application for Travel Document to USCIS. The USCIS cautions individuals planning on traveling abroad to file Form I-131 well in advance of their travel plans (approximately 90 days before) in order to prevent possible conflicts.
We suggest all applicants of I-131 to file it in time to get the AP approval before leaving the U.S., otherwise it could have dire consequences and may result in an individual not being able to re-enter. Therefore, individuals that have a pending I-485 are encouraged to apply for Advance Parole before traveling abroad for easier re-entry if the circumstances of their current status changes.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/uscis_instruction_to_obtain_ad.html)
In order to obtain Advance Parole, individuals must file Form I-131, Application for Travel Document to USCIS. The USCIS cautions individuals planning on traveling abroad to file Form I-131 well in advance of their travel plans (approximately 90 days before) in order to prevent possible conflicts.
We suggest all applicants of I-131 to file it in time to get the AP approval before leaving the U.S., otherwise it could have dire consequences and may result in an individual not being able to re-enter. Therefore, individuals that have a pending I-485 are encouraged to apply for Advance Parole before traveling abroad for easier re-entry if the circumstances of their current status changes.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/uscis_instruction_to_obtain_ad.html)
hot The puzzle is figuring out
kaisersose
10-24 01:32 PM
Hi,
My wife is working for US firm on L2 VISA (EAD).
The employer is ready to sponsor her GC. We wanted to know what is the process for L2 candidate , will it be same starting from Labor .... or we can skip labor and make use of current L2 EAD to file I-485 directly ?
Nope...she has to start with Labor and apply for a 140 in either EB3 or EB2 categories. Only L-1A visa holders are eligible to skip labor and apply in the EB1 category.
My wife is working for US firm on L2 VISA (EAD).
The employer is ready to sponsor her GC. We wanted to know what is the process for L2 candidate , will it be same starting from Labor .... or we can skip labor and make use of current L2 EAD to file I-485 directly ?
Nope...she has to start with Labor and apply for a 140 in either EB3 or EB2 categories. Only L-1A visa holders are eligible to skip labor and apply in the EB1 category.
more...
house As reprinted from the
sargon
10-19 09:16 PM
^^^^
Please see the linked thread.
Please see the linked thread.
tattoo california gold rush, roller
Blog Feeds
08-02 07:10 AM
Immigration Lawyers Blog Has Just Posted the Following:
USCIS has announced that beginning October 1, 2010, domestic offices and U.S. territories, including the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam, will no longer be accepting cash payments. Other payment options will include money orders, credit cards, and checks (including personal checks).
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~4/ZK9BnhuCOWE
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~3/ZK9BnhuCOWE/uscis_changes_payment_options.html)
USCIS has announced that beginning October 1, 2010, domestic offices and U.S. territories, including the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam, will no longer be accepting cash payments. Other payment options will include money orders, credit cards, and checks (including personal checks).
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~4/ZK9BnhuCOWE
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~3/ZK9BnhuCOWE/uscis_changes_payment_options.html)
more...
pictures during the Gold Rush when
purgan
04-12 10:48 PM
good find. thanks.
Intresting to see skilled, legal, employment-based immigrants comprise only 15-20% of the total. Actual number of immigrants is probably less than half of this, as this figure includes dependents.
Need urgent reform!
Intresting to see skilled, legal, employment-based immigrants comprise only 15-20% of the total. Actual number of immigrants is probably less than half of this, as this figure includes dependents.
Need urgent reform!
dresses gold rush map of australia.
designserve
04-07 10:45 AM
SoCal family charged with arranging fake marriages - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fake_marriages_immigration_fraud)
more...
makeup the California Gold Rush,
Blog Feeds
08-14 01:40 PM
As the prospects for Immigration reform are becoming more of a reality, so does the debate about illegal Immigration is more real than ever. A story just came in from CNN an Arizona man caught leaving water bottles in the desert for illegal immigrants has been sentenced to 300 hours of community service and a year of probation.
Walt Staton, a member of the group No More Deaths, left full water bottles in December in Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge for the illegal immigrants who routinely pass through the 18,000-acre refuge. Read more here (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/13/arizona.immigrant.advocate/index.html)
As the Immigration debate heats up this summer, expect more stories like this one.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/american_sentenced_after_leavi.html)
Walt Staton, a member of the group No More Deaths, left full water bottles in December in Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge for the illegal immigrants who routinely pass through the 18,000-acre refuge. Read more here (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/13/arizona.immigrant.advocate/index.html)
As the Immigration debate heats up this summer, expect more stories like this one.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/american_sentenced_after_leavi.html)
girlfriend pictures California gold rush
Steve Mitchell
September 12th, 2007, 07:24 AM
Nikon has posted official sample pics from the soon to be released D3. Check them out here (http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/camera/slr/digital/d3/sample.htm).
hairstyles Routes to California in 1849
Macaca
04-27 09:43 AM
Sen. Luddite Strikes Again (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602257.html) -- Once more, a mystery Republican blocks electronic filing for Senate candidates, Friday, April 27, 2007
JUST AS she did on April 17, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) went to the Senate floor to call for unanimous consent on a common-sense bill that would require candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically. And just as he or she did on April 17, Sen. Ima Luddite (R-Who Knows Where) voiced opposition. This time the mouthpiece was Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.). "On behalf of the Republican side," he said, "I object." We object to the obstruction.
Honestly, what is the big deal here? Filing campaign finance reports electronically has been standard operating procedure for candidates for the House of Representatives and the White House for years -- as it has been for political parties, political action committees and "527" groups. Yet Senate candidates are still trudging down to the Senate Office of Public Records with paper copies of their reports, which are then passed along to the Federal Election Commission, which sends them to a vendor that punches in the information and zaps it back to the FEC electronically. That finally makes them widely available, sometimes too late for voters to see who's donating to whom and how the money is being spent. With this seeming fear of modernity, it's a wonder the Senate isn't calculating budgets with an abacus. Or is it a fear of disclosure?
After the bill was blocked, Ms. Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, said, "It is very hard for me to understand who could oppose this and what their reason for opposing it could be." It is very hard for us, too. Sen. Luddite -- whoever he or she may be -- should come out of the shadows and explain the irrational fear that is keeping the Senate from joining the rest of us in the 21st century. Senator anonymous -- Another Day, Another Hold On Finance Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602249.html) By Matthew Mosk (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/matthew+mosk/), Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, April 27, 2007
Sen. Anonymous struck again yesterday.
The infamous unnamed senator (or senators) has for more than a week blocked passage of legislation that would require Senate candidates to file campaign finance reports electronically.
Electronic filings would make the names of campaign donors readily available -- it's how members of the House and presidential candidates have been doing it for years. When Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) first brought the bill to the floor last week, though, he was told that an unnamed lawmaker objected.
Long-standing Senate custom allows the objection of a single senator to stop a bill in its tracks -- it's known as a secret hold. A measure that passed the Senate earlier this year, and awaits a House vote, would eliminate the practice.
The hold unleashed a torrent of activity on the Internet, as bloggers tried to flush out the identity of the senator responsible for the hold. But after an onslaught of phone calls to Senate offices, the bloggers have no answer. No one owned up to being the culprit.
Yesterday, the bill's sponsor tried again. And again, the Republican floor leader objected. A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he is sure the name of the secret senator is known "in the cloakroom," but he said that misses the point.
"A hold can't stop something from coming to the floor," Don Stewart said. "It can only stop it from being pushed through without a full and open debate on the bill."
That's true -- sponsors had been trying to pass the bill by unanimous consent, which does not permit amendment or debate. But Feingold told the liberal blog Daily Kos that the path was typical for a bill with 35 bipartisan co-sponsors that did not elicit a single objection in committee.
Writing on the blog yesterday, Feingold said: "The fact is that someone anonymously blocked the bill, . . . that person has made no effort to resolve his or her concerns with us, and the Republican leadership won't even tell us who that person is."
JUST AS she did on April 17, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) went to the Senate floor to call for unanimous consent on a common-sense bill that would require candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically. And just as he or she did on April 17, Sen. Ima Luddite (R-Who Knows Where) voiced opposition. This time the mouthpiece was Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.). "On behalf of the Republican side," he said, "I object." We object to the obstruction.
Honestly, what is the big deal here? Filing campaign finance reports electronically has been standard operating procedure for candidates for the House of Representatives and the White House for years -- as it has been for political parties, political action committees and "527" groups. Yet Senate candidates are still trudging down to the Senate Office of Public Records with paper copies of their reports, which are then passed along to the Federal Election Commission, which sends them to a vendor that punches in the information and zaps it back to the FEC electronically. That finally makes them widely available, sometimes too late for voters to see who's donating to whom and how the money is being spent. With this seeming fear of modernity, it's a wonder the Senate isn't calculating budgets with an abacus. Or is it a fear of disclosure?
After the bill was blocked, Ms. Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, said, "It is very hard for me to understand who could oppose this and what their reason for opposing it could be." It is very hard for us, too. Sen. Luddite -- whoever he or she may be -- should come out of the shadows and explain the irrational fear that is keeping the Senate from joining the rest of us in the 21st century. Senator anonymous -- Another Day, Another Hold On Finance Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602249.html) By Matthew Mosk (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/matthew+mosk/), Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, April 27, 2007
Sen. Anonymous struck again yesterday.
The infamous unnamed senator (or senators) has for more than a week blocked passage of legislation that would require Senate candidates to file campaign finance reports electronically.
Electronic filings would make the names of campaign donors readily available -- it's how members of the House and presidential candidates have been doing it for years. When Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) first brought the bill to the floor last week, though, he was told that an unnamed lawmaker objected.
Long-standing Senate custom allows the objection of a single senator to stop a bill in its tracks -- it's known as a secret hold. A measure that passed the Senate earlier this year, and awaits a House vote, would eliminate the practice.
The hold unleashed a torrent of activity on the Internet, as bloggers tried to flush out the identity of the senator responsible for the hold. But after an onslaught of phone calls to Senate offices, the bloggers have no answer. No one owned up to being the culprit.
Yesterday, the bill's sponsor tried again. And again, the Republican floor leader objected. A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he is sure the name of the secret senator is known "in the cloakroom," but he said that misses the point.
"A hold can't stop something from coming to the floor," Don Stewart said. "It can only stop it from being pushed through without a full and open debate on the bill."
That's true -- sponsors had been trying to pass the bill by unanimous consent, which does not permit amendment or debate. But Feingold told the liberal blog Daily Kos that the path was typical for a bill with 35 bipartisan co-sponsors that did not elicit a single objection in committee.
Writing on the blog yesterday, Feingold said: "The fact is that someone anonymously blocked the bill, . . . that person has made no effort to resolve his or her concerns with us, and the Republican leadership won't even tell us who that person is."
redelite
03-18 03:32 PM
Hey it rhymes!... :suppose_maybe:
Okay anyways, here is my entry. I drew this from a picture that was taken of me (left obviously) and my cousin in Disney World last June.
I'll scan it once I get my printer/scanner/cappuccino-maker all set up (just moved into a new place). I'll also scan the original photo so you can compare.
Anyways, I thought it turned out well, although I kind of look like a zombie and all my fingers look sort of broken. :lol:
Cheers! :beer:
Okay anyways, here is my entry. I drew this from a picture that was taken of me (left obviously) and my cousin in Disney World last June.
I'll scan it once I get my printer/scanner/cappuccino-maker all set up (just moved into a new place). I'll also scan the original photo so you can compare.
Anyways, I thought it turned out well, although I kind of look like a zombie and all my fingers look sort of broken. :lol:
Cheers! :beer:
PraveenVadlam
02-23 08:52 AM
I have the following questions with respect to number of days I can stay out of the country for my situation.
I have been on green card since June 2010.
I have visited India from October 17' 2010 to Feb 4' 2011 (Total 111 Days).
Now I need to go back to India again for around 3 months (Approx 10th May - 10th Aug) which is about 93 Days.
My questions are:
1. As a GC holder can I make the above visits without resetting my 'Continuity of 5 Yeard of Residence' clock ? As in each calender year I will not be out of country for greater than 180 days. But, when you count from October 16 2010 - October 15 2011, I will be more than 180 days out of the country.
2. If answer to the above question is NO, do I need to file/apply for any exception to be out of country?
Thanks for your advise.
Praveen
I have been on green card since June 2010.
I have visited India from October 17' 2010 to Feb 4' 2011 (Total 111 Days).
Now I need to go back to India again for around 3 months (Approx 10th May - 10th Aug) which is about 93 Days.
My questions are:
1. As a GC holder can I make the above visits without resetting my 'Continuity of 5 Yeard of Residence' clock ? As in each calender year I will not be out of country for greater than 180 days. But, when you count from October 16 2010 - October 15 2011, I will be more than 180 days out of the country.
2. If answer to the above question is NO, do I need to file/apply for any exception to be out of country?
Thanks for your advise.
Praveen
No comments:
Post a Comment