priderock
11-29 03:28 PM
senorita..raj here...
here comes the answers for your responses...
1) Since I wont be coming back to US as of now, what if I do not get my H1 visa stamped. Can I use my approval(I-797)in the present consulting firm's name, for getting H1b stamped through any other company in future.
You need pay stubs of working firm to get the stamping. If you are working presently ..u will ahve some pay stubs and you can use it and get stamped.
2) I understand that stamping is needed only for reentering US. What if i just get the stamping done and still do not come back. In that case, can I still transfer my stamped H1B to any other company without working at all for the consulting firm whose stamp I have on my passport.
If you live out side US for more than 360 days , then u r H1b is invalid. In order to return again you should apply under the H1b cap.
Hope this helps....
It is not true. H1 is valid until its validity date.
here comes the answers for your responses...
1) Since I wont be coming back to US as of now, what if I do not get my H1 visa stamped. Can I use my approval(I-797)in the present consulting firm's name, for getting H1b stamped through any other company in future.
You need pay stubs of working firm to get the stamping. If you are working presently ..u will ahve some pay stubs and you can use it and get stamped.
2) I understand that stamping is needed only for reentering US. What if i just get the stamping done and still do not come back. In that case, can I still transfer my stamped H1B to any other company without working at all for the consulting firm whose stamp I have on my passport.
If you live out side US for more than 360 days , then u r H1b is invalid. In order to return again you should apply under the H1b cap.
Hope this helps....
It is not true. H1 is valid until its validity date.
wallpaper Used Renault Scenic 2004
nixstor
04-09 03:42 PM
Ideas are dozen a dime irrespective of whether they are good/bad. As you observed that this is a good idea and IV has already approached websites like rediff/sulekha, only to be asked for enoromous amounts of money for featuring IV on their website. So we need $$$ via contributions or the situation should get so worse that media will write for free.
There are people who come out, say something, throw out an idea and vanish. By challenging their posts and providing them with the right information, we can streamline the zeal and enthusiasm to do something (if they have any). Its not meant to dampen the OP's spirit to work on anything. I feel that the repsonse to OP was lacking information about what IV has done already in this regard. asking for contribution might have made you feel that the response was blunt/heckling. He explained why we need money, like lobbying. IMHO, To get on to the hill and get an amendment the most important thing is $$$. Period.
There are people who come out, say something, throw out an idea and vanish. By challenging their posts and providing them with the right information, we can streamline the zeal and enthusiasm to do something (if they have any). Its not meant to dampen the OP's spirit to work on anything. I feel that the repsonse to OP was lacking information about what IV has done already in this regard. asking for contribution might have made you feel that the response was blunt/heckling. He explained why we need money, like lobbying. IMHO, To get on to the hill and get an amendment the most important thing is $$$. Period.
Libra
08-15 12:12 PM
Congrats and welcome to IV, hope you become an active member and contribute your efforts to IV.
I thought this will give some hope to you.
Mine reached USCIS on July-3rd around 6:00am. All 6 (2x485, 2xAP, 2xEAD) checks were cached today.
Hope yours on the way too...
I thought this will give some hope to you.
Mine reached USCIS on July-3rd around 6:00am. All 6 (2x485, 2xAP, 2xEAD) checks were cached today.
Hope yours on the way too...
2011 Used Renault Scenic 2004
dixie
11-06 04:43 PM
It doesnt matter whether the clients of the employer are for-profit or not (obviously). The only thing relevant is whether or not the organization for which your wife will work is classified as not-for-profit.
My Wife, if everything works out, will be working in a Finance related field for a Health Care related service providing financial services to many many hospitals.
I was wondering if I could use the Heallth care angle for the H1b Non Cap
My Wife, if everything works out, will be working in a Finance related field for a Health Care related service providing financial services to many many hospitals.
I was wondering if I could use the Heallth care angle for the H1b Non Cap
more...
indianabacklog
07-27 09:32 AM
I don't think its required to work 100% while you an EAD, most of us apply EAD for spouses along with us, but how many are going to start work?
EAD is like a free pass to "living". You have the choice to work, not to work, work for yourself, change employer when you wish etc.
However, if you are the primary applicant if at all possible stay with your H1B employer and let your dependent have this luxury.
EAD is like a free pass to "living". You have the choice to work, not to work, work for yourself, change employer when you wish etc.
However, if you are the primary applicant if at all possible stay with your H1B employer and let your dependent have this luxury.
GCBy3000
07-25 05:25 PM
I got promoted to managerial position and I got depromoted back during my H1 extn time when the company attorney noticed the change in my title. He politiely conferenced me and HR and said it is not acceptable as my GC is pending unless otherwise my company is willing to put me back in the LC position during my AOS filing. My duties change d as my title change, but I was still doing 50% of what was explained in the LC. Again there was no other pun intended reason for my demotion to make it clear. Each attorney is different, but it scews the candidates since the company HR listens to them as they are liable for it.
Yes that is right the job responsibilities can increase. For my case the labor was filed for engineer position but I am on a manager level now and title has changed. My responsibilities have increased means i have all resp advertised + more and lawyer said OK.
Yes that is right the job responsibilities can increase. For my case the labor was filed for engineer position but I am on a manager level now and title has changed. My responsibilities have increased means i have all resp advertised + more and lawyer said OK.
more...
hsm2007
09-20 07:28 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Thanks.
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Thanks.
2010 Renault Scenic 1.5 dCi full
GCwaitforever
07-28 09:10 AM
i just lost my job and had an approved LC with that company. i have been extending my h1 for the past 3 years now. my i 140 was withdrawn when it was first applied as the company did not give all the information when my lawyer was preparing it the second time the company gave a lot of wrong information. my current h1 expirs in dec
what options do i have ?
Very sorry to hear about the job loss. I believe USCIS gives about 60 days for H-1B applicants. Please try hard to get another job within this time and apply for H-1B to stay with correct status. Without approved I-140, your earlier LC can not be used for porting old priority date.
what options do i have ?
Very sorry to hear about the job loss. I believe USCIS gives about 60 days for H-1B applicants. Please try hard to get another job within this time and apply for H-1B to stay with correct status. Without approved I-140, your earlier LC can not be used for porting old priority date.
more...
tammigaw
02-06 05:27 PM
Thanks a lot for heart warming response .
I greatly appreciate your comments .
Ask him to go to hell!!!
Pls go on and join wherever you like and tell him this is a free country like India.Go to a lawyer and sue him if he talks any further...Not to worry,my friend.
I greatly appreciate your comments .
Ask him to go to hell!!!
Pls go on and join wherever you like and tell him this is a free country like India.Go to a lawyer and sue him if he talks any further...Not to worry,my friend.
hair Renault Scenic 2004 54 Reg
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
ramaonline
03-18 02:33 AM
You can take an infopass appt at the local office and speak to an immigration officer. I know of a similar case where the USCIS officer said that the derivative 485 application is no longer valid after divorce, and the derivative application will be denied. He sent some email to the service center asking them to deny the derivative 485. The primary 485 was still approved - I don't know what happened to the spouse's application.
In any case as long as you are the primary applicant, and spouse is a derivative applicant- your 485 application will not be affected.
In any case as long as you are the primary applicant, and spouse is a derivative applicant- your 485 application will not be affected.
hot RENAULT - Scenic, 2004
walking_dude
10-18 03:12 PM
Here are the steps in setting up "Bill Pay" from your Bank account (online)
1) Check with your bank if "Bill Pay" is a free service, or not for your account. Some banks have conditions that must be met for e.g. Direct Deposit, Certain minimum balance, certain type of account or not. If you don't meet the criteria your bank may charge a service fees for using "Bill Pay"!
2) You might need to get "Bill Pay" activated on your online account. This might be possible for some by clicking on a "Service Agreement" screen. For others you might need to visit the Bank to get it activated.
3) Most banks that support "Repeating payments" allow you to "Add Payee" for future transactions. Provide IV address here and add "Immigration Voice" as a payee
Immigration Voice
PO Box 114
Dayton, NJ - 08810
Some Banks ask for Telephone Numbers too (mine did).
Ph : 850-391-4966
4) Click on link that says "Setup Repeating Payments" in the "Bill Pay" section (some might provide this option while setting up payments and not provide a separate section)
Select "Immigration Voice" as the payee. Enter the amount you would like to send to IV every month. Select the frequency as "Monthly" ( there may be other options such as daily, bimonthly, annually, quarterly etc. choose the one suitable for you.)
In the "message to payee" (or something similar) provide your E-mail id. This will be used by IV to inform you of check enchashment (thank you note). Will help you track the payment end-to-end.
6) Bank account (Bill pay section) will give you a list of all checks sent to IV (from the Bank). If any check hasn't been acknowledged, call IV and make sure it's been received!
HTH
1) Check with your bank if "Bill Pay" is a free service, or not for your account. Some banks have conditions that must be met for e.g. Direct Deposit, Certain minimum balance, certain type of account or not. If you don't meet the criteria your bank may charge a service fees for using "Bill Pay"!
2) You might need to get "Bill Pay" activated on your online account. This might be possible for some by clicking on a "Service Agreement" screen. For others you might need to visit the Bank to get it activated.
3) Most banks that support "Repeating payments" allow you to "Add Payee" for future transactions. Provide IV address here and add "Immigration Voice" as a payee
Immigration Voice
PO Box 114
Dayton, NJ - 08810
Some Banks ask for Telephone Numbers too (mine did).
Ph : 850-391-4966
4) Click on link that says "Setup Repeating Payments" in the "Bill Pay" section (some might provide this option while setting up payments and not provide a separate section)
Select "Immigration Voice" as the payee. Enter the amount you would like to send to IV every month. Select the frequency as "Monthly" ( there may be other options such as daily, bimonthly, annually, quarterly etc. choose the one suitable for you.)
In the "message to payee" (or something similar) provide your E-mail id. This will be used by IV to inform you of check enchashment (thank you note). Will help you track the payment end-to-end.
6) Bank account (Bill pay section) will give you a list of all checks sent to IV (from the Bank). If any check hasn't been acknowledged, call IV and make sure it's been received!
HTH
more...
house q coches caben 3 sillas de
sriramkalyan
09-14 03:57 PM
Hey Guys/ Gals
Senator CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activiites of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table
Highlights:
a) Recapture of Unused Employment-Based Immigrant Visas
b)Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants.--The worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of--
``(1) 290,000; and
c) Retaining Immigrants Who Have Been Educated in the United States
Senator CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activiites of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table
Highlights:
a) Recapture of Unused Employment-Based Immigrant Visas
b)Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants.--The worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of--
``(1) 290,000; and
c) Retaining Immigrants Who Have Been Educated in the United States
tattoo Renault Scenic (2004)
srkamath
07-16 09:09 AM
IF the position needs Master's+ and applicant has a MS+ degree, then USCIS automatically classifies the I-140 as EB2, as the law clearly states this.
If the position requires (BS+5yrs)+ and the applicant meets this, it will NOT automatically be put into EB2. Employer must ask for the "exceptional ability" provision of the law to get EB2.
If the position requires (BS+5yrs)+ and the applicant meets this, it will NOT automatically be put into EB2. Employer must ask for the "exceptional ability" provision of the law to get EB2.
more...
pictures Original RENAULT´s cooler
rkat
12-13 03:46 PM
Swamy - (with due respect to IV who i totally support in every which way!) but what have u done other than joining a state chapter, contributing $$ to IV and holding signs at the DC rally.?? Is this what ur life has come to now..?? Only to motivate people to join IV..?? How long do u plan on conitnuing to do this.?? Wake up buddy..!! Yes we are stuck in this mess now having filed for AOS and the indefinite future wait for cases to be approved..!! There is no doubt about that.
But somebody like dyekek12 who seems to be new to the immigration world - whats the harm in sharing with him options that maybe more practical for him 3-5 years from now.! If somebody would have adviced me back in the hay days - i would have surely listened.! There are 3 SENIOR members who seem to agree to what i have said.! All of us cannot be socially challenged.! Sorry swamy - i disagree.! How would a college professor or a dept. head answer his Q....Myfriend - ..." there is the real world and then there is the immigration world........!!!! "
The immigration system here in the US is like fire - and if u try playing with fire there is no doubt in my mind that you will only get burnt.!! (again - i'm not a village bellie neither am i socially challeged - i am only being realistic.! thats all.! and i know it hurts!)
But somebody like dyekek12 who seems to be new to the immigration world - whats the harm in sharing with him options that maybe more practical for him 3-5 years from now.! If somebody would have adviced me back in the hay days - i would have surely listened.! There are 3 SENIOR members who seem to agree to what i have said.! All of us cannot be socially challenged.! Sorry swamy - i disagree.! How would a college professor or a dept. head answer his Q....Myfriend - ..." there is the real world and then there is the immigration world........!!!! "
The immigration system here in the US is like fire - and if u try playing with fire there is no doubt in my mind that you will only get burnt.!! (again - i'm not a village bellie neither am i socially challeged - i am only being realistic.! thats all.! and i know it hurts!)
dresses Renault Scenic 1.6 VVT
webm
09-25 11:10 AM
So spouse can just use the EAD card and apply for a job. What does the employing company ask for when hiring?
What if they do not know what an EAD card is?
Also when can the spouse apply for SSN# after getting EAD card. Is the there a time frame within which one has to get the SSN#?
1)Just say them that you have EAD work permit authorization and can work for any employer/company on W2 basis.
2)You just explain them with its use.Mostly everyone know about EAD is used for..
3)Once you got EAD card onhand you can directly go to any nearest SSN office and apply.You should get SSN card with in 15 business days or earlier..
HTH,
What if they do not know what an EAD card is?
Also when can the spouse apply for SSN# after getting EAD card. Is the there a time frame within which one has to get the SSN#?
1)Just say them that you have EAD work permit authorization and can work for any employer/company on W2 basis.
2)You just explain them with its use.Mostly everyone know about EAD is used for..
3)Once you got EAD card onhand you can directly go to any nearest SSN office and apply.You should get SSN card with in 15 business days or earlier..
HTH,
more...
makeup Renault Scenic 2004 54 Reg 1.6
lunar
07-21 08:38 AM
Normally my wife is the one who is used to post or follow up on the latest here.
This came up a week ago. I have been working from home in a different state and we do not have any company office near my home. Nearest office location is about 3 hours. I had to move this far away due to personal reasons.
Now after working from home for 3 years (extending EAD, H1Bs etc) Fragomen (most of you know who they are) says I cannot do work from home anymore due to this conflict with uscis. it seems USCIS doesnt recognize your home as a Govt recognized work location. Hence I cannot work from home.
Now my manager wants me to only work from the office since folks reporting to me are also in that state. Now he is using Fragomen and HR emails as a reason for me to move back.
Anythoughts ? I am sure you all will agree that is the law. but why all this now ? even after working for 12 years.
One other point the fragomen lawyer said is - this is going to be the case for all thier clients.
This came up a week ago. I have been working from home in a different state and we do not have any company office near my home. Nearest office location is about 3 hours. I had to move this far away due to personal reasons.
Now after working from home for 3 years (extending EAD, H1Bs etc) Fragomen (most of you know who they are) says I cannot do work from home anymore due to this conflict with uscis. it seems USCIS doesnt recognize your home as a Govt recognized work location. Hence I cannot work from home.
Now my manager wants me to only work from the office since folks reporting to me are also in that state. Now he is using Fragomen and HR emails as a reason for me to move back.
Anythoughts ? I am sure you all will agree that is the law. but why all this now ? even after working for 12 years.
One other point the fragomen lawyer said is - this is going to be the case for all thier clients.
girlfriend renault scenic 1.5 dci 2004
gc_chahiye
12-10 12:40 PM
Please look at the below links, it says that one can move jobs after 180 days even without 140 being approved.
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_yatmay.html
Any comments / suggestions ?
To be safe, either your I-140 needs to be approvable right off the bat (as filed) or your employer needs to co-operate with responding to RFE etc...
Safer to wait for approval...
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_yatmay.html
Any comments / suggestions ?
To be safe, either your I-140 needs to be approvable right off the bat (as filed) or your employer needs to co-operate with responding to RFE etc...
Safer to wait for approval...
hairstyles Used Renault Scenic 2004
Green.Tech
07-23 06:40 PM
AFAIK, as long as the core duties mentioned in the LC don't change considerably (by more than 50%), the company can promote you anytime.
sweet23guyin
11-15 11:08 AM
I am having tough time in getting an appointment with my local Representative and let them know what out problems are. And now this DEC bulletin is making my head spin.
---may be this bulletin will push me more in getting just an appointment--
:cool:God bless America:cool:
---may be this bulletin will push me more in getting just an appointment--
:cool:God bless America:cool:
tikka
08-10 04:07 PM
Get some inspiration
qtW8h5vLfn4
and make it to the meeting and rally :)
see you there..
qtW8h5vLfn4
and make it to the meeting and rally :)
see you there..
No comments:
Post a Comment