cooldudesfo
12-25 05:11 PM
Thanks Anil.
wallpaper The best color for your hair
SBH
01-11 08:33 AM
please reply..
grupak
11-17 06:41 PM
Great editorial!
2011 dark londe hair with
chanduv23
07-08 08:08 AM
I signed up with a new Attorney for filing my 485. I sent my documents in the last week of July and until I sent my documents out, she was communicating well saying she will make sure everything is done in time ...... and assured me that her clients are her strength .....
She has not completed the paperwork till now and she closed down all communication channels with me.
On Friday the paralegal called me and told me papers are getting ready soon.
I am confused and don't know how to deal with this situation - I figure out that it is too late to trust any lawyer now.
Though there is no point in submitting on July 2nd anymore, I am just wondering what must be the next course of action?
I am sure they will drag this through end of next week because they seem to cater to corporate clients rather than personal clients and are very unresponsive.
In general - what are folks doing, especially those who did not file yet? Are all your packets with lawyer, ready to file and send?
Please advice
She has not completed the paperwork till now and she closed down all communication channels with me.
On Friday the paralegal called me and told me papers are getting ready soon.
I am confused and don't know how to deal with this situation - I figure out that it is too late to trust any lawyer now.
Though there is no point in submitting on July 2nd anymore, I am just wondering what must be the next course of action?
I am sure they will drag this through end of next week because they seem to cater to corporate clients rather than personal clients and are very unresponsive.
In general - what are folks doing, especially those who did not file yet? Are all your packets with lawyer, ready to file and send?
Please advice
more...
rpatel
12-12 09:51 AM
I have an opportunity to do some consulting work for a company B on a part-time basis apart from my current full time job with company A. I know that I will need another H1 for the part time gig but what I am confused about is whether the company B has to wait for next years quota to file for an H1 or can it file immediately ? Meaning is the H1b quota tied to max no of individuals ? or to max no of positions ?
I would appreciate if some one knowledgeable about the issue can comment on my question:confused:
I would appreciate if some one knowledgeable about the issue can comment on my question:confused:
tarone
12-02 01:54 PM
hi sunofeast_gc
Its been over a month now and have not got any response.
Should i apply for 1-140 before my 6th yearh h visa ends.
I have already applied for 7th year extension but i still have few days left for 6th year h visa.
Can you tell me how did you approach to fix the PD i.e should i approach only via my lawyer or directly and by which means like email, phone, letter etc and which department.
thanks
Its been over a month now and have not got any response.
Should i apply for 1-140 before my 6th yearh h visa ends.
I have already applied for 7th year extension but i still have few days left for 6th year h visa.
Can you tell me how did you approach to fix the PD i.e should i approach only via my lawyer or directly and by which means like email, phone, letter etc and which department.
thanks
more...
maheshf
03-19 11:45 PM
Gurus Here is my situation:
1) I am in my 4th year of H1-B still valid
2) My 1-140 is pending (Concurrently filed in July 2007) so more than > 180 days
3) Have approved EAD and AP
4) My Current company was a joint version between company A-B . differnt name X
5) Today they decide to split and My job will move to company A by end of this month. Work won�t change..will keep doing what have been doing But now employee of comany A not X
What are my options? I am worried about my GC process..will I loose everything and have to restart the process since I can not evoke my AC21 ..since it�s not approved yet.
Please Advise
-Mahesh
1) I am in my 4th year of H1-B still valid
2) My 1-140 is pending (Concurrently filed in July 2007) so more than > 180 days
3) Have approved EAD and AP
4) My Current company was a joint version between company A-B . differnt name X
5) Today they decide to split and My job will move to company A by end of this month. Work won�t change..will keep doing what have been doing But now employee of comany A not X
What are my options? I am worried about my GC process..will I loose everything and have to restart the process since I can not evoke my AC21 ..since it�s not approved yet.
Please Advise
-Mahesh
2010 brown hair with red highlights
Blog Feeds
07-08 11:30 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
Senator Sessions cannot leave his hands off of E-Verify. Now in "stealth" mode, Senator Sessions has slyly introduced an E-Verify amendment (SB 1371) during today's full Senate vote on the DHS appropriations bill.
The Sessions amendment calls for a permanent reauthorization of the Basic Pilot/E-Verify program, and mandates its use for all federal contractors and subcontractors - including the verification of all existing employees. This amounts to a massive expansion of a program that is still not ready for prime-time.
We must call our Senators and tell them to oppose this sneak attack by Senator Sessions for the following reasons:
It would impose exorbitant costs on businesses at a time when our economy is most vulnerable:
An economic analysis commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
concluded that the net societal costs of the program would be $10 billion a year
� a cost that would be felt disproportionately by small businesses. It would make Basic Pilot/E-Verify permanent without addressing its well documented database inaccuracies:
A 2007 independent evaluation of the program commissioned by DHS found that
the Basic Pilot/E-Verify database �is still not sufficiently up to date� to meet
the requirements for �accurate verification.�
SSA has estimated that if Basic Pilot/E-Verify were to become mandatory and
the databases were not improved, SSA database errors alone could result in 3.6
million workers a year being misidentified as not authorized for employment.
This would result in 6 out of every 100 workers having to visit an SSA office to
correct their records or lose their job.
It would force workers and businesses to pay a high price for Basic Pilot/E-Verify's inaccuracies:
Queries submitted to Basic Pilot/E-Verify by Intel Corporation in 2008 resulted
in nearly 13 percent of all workers being initially flagged as unauthorized for
employment. All of these workers were cleared by Basic Pilot/E-Verify as
work-authorized, but only after �significant investment of time and money�
and �lost productivity.�We urge all AILA members to call their Congressman today and oppose the Sessions amendment (SB 1371). Don't let Senator Session's stealth tactics create a nationwide crisis for employers!
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-5839069238864574507?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/there-he-goes-again-sessions-and-e.html)
Senator Sessions cannot leave his hands off of E-Verify. Now in "stealth" mode, Senator Sessions has slyly introduced an E-Verify amendment (SB 1371) during today's full Senate vote on the DHS appropriations bill.
The Sessions amendment calls for a permanent reauthorization of the Basic Pilot/E-Verify program, and mandates its use for all federal contractors and subcontractors - including the verification of all existing employees. This amounts to a massive expansion of a program that is still not ready for prime-time.
We must call our Senators and tell them to oppose this sneak attack by Senator Sessions for the following reasons:
It would impose exorbitant costs on businesses at a time when our economy is most vulnerable:
An economic analysis commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
concluded that the net societal costs of the program would be $10 billion a year
� a cost that would be felt disproportionately by small businesses. It would make Basic Pilot/E-Verify permanent without addressing its well documented database inaccuracies:
A 2007 independent evaluation of the program commissioned by DHS found that
the Basic Pilot/E-Verify database �is still not sufficiently up to date� to meet
the requirements for �accurate verification.�
SSA has estimated that if Basic Pilot/E-Verify were to become mandatory and
the databases were not improved, SSA database errors alone could result in 3.6
million workers a year being misidentified as not authorized for employment.
This would result in 6 out of every 100 workers having to visit an SSA office to
correct their records or lose their job.
It would force workers and businesses to pay a high price for Basic Pilot/E-Verify's inaccuracies:
Queries submitted to Basic Pilot/E-Verify by Intel Corporation in 2008 resulted
in nearly 13 percent of all workers being initially flagged as unauthorized for
employment. All of these workers were cleared by Basic Pilot/E-Verify as
work-authorized, but only after �significant investment of time and money�
and �lost productivity.�We urge all AILA members to call their Congressman today and oppose the Sessions amendment (SB 1371). Don't let Senator Session's stealth tactics create a nationwide crisis for employers!
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-5839069238864574507?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/there-he-goes-again-sessions-and-e.html)
more...
mrana
01-14 12:29 AM
Mcom+MBA+Mphil +NET + 5 yrs exp as lecturer in Delhi.
hair Photo of Ash blonde blond
laststraw
06-22 05:59 PM
Here are my case details
1. Labor approved with job role 1 with priority date of June-2004
2. I-140 EB2 filed - denied - appealed in May 2008 and is with AAO (I485 denied due to this)
3. I-140 EB3 filed for same labour in May 2008 - pending as NSC won't rule on this case until the AAO
4. Moved to a job role 2 which is 90 percent different from job role 1 with same company in Jan 2010 (forced to do it as my previous job role has been outsourced). Changed H1B to job role 2 and have initiated PERM process (got PWD and in the advt phase).
Here is my question:
I believe that there is very little chance for my EB2 I140 appeal will come through. But if it comes through, I don't want to re-open my I485 even though the EB2 date is current for this, as my job role has changed. Would I still be able to port the priority date from the approved EB2 for job role 1 to the new GC process with job role 2 (after my I140 for job role 2 is approved)?
Any thoughts on this is appreciated.
Thanks,
laststraw
1. Labor approved with job role 1 with priority date of June-2004
2. I-140 EB2 filed - denied - appealed in May 2008 and is with AAO (I485 denied due to this)
3. I-140 EB3 filed for same labour in May 2008 - pending as NSC won't rule on this case until the AAO
4. Moved to a job role 2 which is 90 percent different from job role 1 with same company in Jan 2010 (forced to do it as my previous job role has been outsourced). Changed H1B to job role 2 and have initiated PERM process (got PWD and in the advt phase).
Here is my question:
I believe that there is very little chance for my EB2 I140 appeal will come through. But if it comes through, I don't want to re-open my I485 even though the EB2 date is current for this, as my job role has changed. Would I still be able to port the priority date from the approved EB2 for job role 1 to the new GC process with job role 2 (after my I140 for job role 2 is approved)?
Any thoughts on this is appreciated.
Thanks,
laststraw
more...
Blog Feeds
04-26 11:30 AM
For the second time, a federal judge has declared a Farmers Branch ordinance banning illegal immigrants from renting in the city to be unconstitutional. Here are excerpts from a Dallas Morning News (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-FBsuit_25met.ART.Central.Edition1.4c77c2c.html) article reporting this decision:
U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle of Dallas ruled Wednesday that the ordinance was an attempt to enforce U.S. immigration laws – something the judge said only the federal government can do.
The judge also issued a permanent injunction to stop Farmers Branch from enforcing Ordinance 2952.
Mayor Tim O'Hare, the driving force behind the ordinances, said he wants to appeal.
"The American people are tired of judges legislating from the bench," he said. "This decision is not unexpected but welcomed, because it allows us to get closer to this ordinance becoming reality."
But O'Hare said the City Council would have to vote on whether to continue a fight that has cost the city nearly $3.2 million since September 2006. And the city may need to spend an additional $623,000 in legal fees in the year ahead, city finance director Charles Cox said Wednesday.
About one-quarter of the estimated 30,000 people who live in Farmers Branch were born outside the United States. About 47 percent of the city's population is Hispanic.
In the past four years, the city has proposed a series of ordinances that would make it illegal for landlords to rent to illegal immigrants. A version approved by the council in 2006 was repealed in early 2007 to make way for another ordinance.
That ordinance, No. 2903, was approved by two-thirds of voters in 2007 but later declared unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay. The city abandoned an appeal of that ordinance in favor of Ordinance 2952. No. 2952 added all rental units, including houses, to the ban on renting to illegal immigrants.
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Immigration-law-answers-blog/~3/tzioDil0POU/)
U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle of Dallas ruled Wednesday that the ordinance was an attempt to enforce U.S. immigration laws – something the judge said only the federal government can do.
The judge also issued a permanent injunction to stop Farmers Branch from enforcing Ordinance 2952.
Mayor Tim O'Hare, the driving force behind the ordinances, said he wants to appeal.
"The American people are tired of judges legislating from the bench," he said. "This decision is not unexpected but welcomed, because it allows us to get closer to this ordinance becoming reality."
But O'Hare said the City Council would have to vote on whether to continue a fight that has cost the city nearly $3.2 million since September 2006. And the city may need to spend an additional $623,000 in legal fees in the year ahead, city finance director Charles Cox said Wednesday.
About one-quarter of the estimated 30,000 people who live in Farmers Branch were born outside the United States. About 47 percent of the city's population is Hispanic.
In the past four years, the city has proposed a series of ordinances that would make it illegal for landlords to rent to illegal immigrants. A version approved by the council in 2006 was repealed in early 2007 to make way for another ordinance.
That ordinance, No. 2903, was approved by two-thirds of voters in 2007 but later declared unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay. The city abandoned an appeal of that ordinance in favor of Ordinance 2952. No. 2952 added all rental units, including houses, to the ban on renting to illegal immigrants.
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Immigration-law-answers-blog/~3/tzioDil0POU/)
hot Dark Hair Blonde Highlights
lostinbeta
10-06 01:10 AM
It's cool, did they help?
more...
house londe hair extensions before
seaken75
10-04 03:37 PM
Hi all IV gurus,
My wife and I filed our I-485, EAD and AP on July 12th and the package arrived in NSC on July 13th. We have received all receipts and finished our FP about 10 days ago. I checked the online status and there are NO LUDs on any of our applications. All of them still show the ND of August 15th. I am EB3 ROW with PD Jan07. My I-140 is still pending at NSC.
My wife is currently on H-4 and she would like to work. Is she able to apply for a temporary EAD on October 15th, since it will already be 90 days since RD? If yes, how do we go about doing that?
Your experience and advice are very much appreciated!
Thanks!
My wife and I filed our I-485, EAD and AP on July 12th and the package arrived in NSC on July 13th. We have received all receipts and finished our FP about 10 days ago. I checked the online status and there are NO LUDs on any of our applications. All of them still show the ND of August 15th. I am EB3 ROW with PD Jan07. My I-140 is still pending at NSC.
My wife is currently on H-4 and she would like to work. Is she able to apply for a temporary EAD on October 15th, since it will already be 90 days since RD? If yes, how do we go about doing that?
Your experience and advice are very much appreciated!
Thanks!
tattoo 2010 Ash Blonde Hair Colour
bsbawa10
03-11 09:30 PM
I have filed for the position for "Progammer Analyst " in company A. I applied for I485 after I140 approval and it has been more than 180 days. I work for company B but in totally different position(unrelated to programmer analyst).
I just got a job of "Programmer cum Instructor" from company C who is transferring my H1. I do not know if I can invoke Ac21 or not. In case yes, then I think I will never have to join company A. Am I right ?
I just got a job of "Programmer cum Instructor" from company C who is transferring my H1. I do not know if I can invoke Ac21 or not. In case yes, then I think I will never have to join company A. Am I right ?
more...
pictures Ash hair color has a specific
Blog Feeds
12-20 08:00 AM
On Saturday morning, the Senate failed to advance the DREAM Act (H.R. 5281) on a vote of 55-41. Sixty votes were needed to move the bill forward procedurally and stop any filibuster. With that loss, the fight for the DREAM Act is over, at least for this Congress. Below is a summary of Greg Chen's report of this vote.
The vote tally in support of DREAM included three Republicans who crossed the aisle to join 50 Democrats and 2 Independents. Those three Rs were: Richard Lugar (IN) and Robert Bennett (UT) who had come out in support long ago and Lisa Murkowski (AK) who started signaling this week that she would vote �yes�. With their yes votes, DREAM maintained its status as a bi-partisan bill back nine years to when it was first introduced with seven Republican co-sponsors. Today, long-time DREAM champion Orrin Hatch (R-UT) failed even to show for the bill he originally sponsored in August 2001.
Unfortunately the gain of three Republicans today was not enough to make up the difference. Combined there are 58 Democrats and Independents in the Senate, and there are 42 Republicans. If all the Ds and Is voted in favor, only two Rs would have been needed to reach 60. But today 5 Democrats voted against DREAM: Baucus (MT); Hagan (NC); Nelson (NE); Pryor (AR); and Tester (MT). And one Democrat, newly elected Joe Manchin (WV) failed to show. To win on �cloture� 60 votes were needed no matter how many actually voted. Thus, a no-show counted as a �no� vote.
As the 111th Congress comes to its sputtering halt, at least on immigration, the question many are asking is whether there will be a real opportunity to bring up DREAM in the 112th. Looking forward, we face at least two enormous legislative challenges: First, the House will shift to Republican control with 242 Rs and 193 Ds. Last week the House passed DREAM on a 218-198 vote�you can bet your house we won�t muster a strong showing like that, let alone a majority, when the new session starts. Second, in the Senate, the Democrats will still have the majority but their margin of control will be 53-47 so getting the �yes� votes will also be harder in that chamber.
For many of us the source of continued inspiration has been to see all the DREAM activists walking the halls of the capitol and showing tremendous courage when they are the ones who have everything at risk. Let's keep a positive spirit for the future as the fight is not over yet.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/12/senate_fails_to_pass_dream_act.html)
The vote tally in support of DREAM included three Republicans who crossed the aisle to join 50 Democrats and 2 Independents. Those three Rs were: Richard Lugar (IN) and Robert Bennett (UT) who had come out in support long ago and Lisa Murkowski (AK) who started signaling this week that she would vote �yes�. With their yes votes, DREAM maintained its status as a bi-partisan bill back nine years to when it was first introduced with seven Republican co-sponsors. Today, long-time DREAM champion Orrin Hatch (R-UT) failed even to show for the bill he originally sponsored in August 2001.
Unfortunately the gain of three Republicans today was not enough to make up the difference. Combined there are 58 Democrats and Independents in the Senate, and there are 42 Republicans. If all the Ds and Is voted in favor, only two Rs would have been needed to reach 60. But today 5 Democrats voted against DREAM: Baucus (MT); Hagan (NC); Nelson (NE); Pryor (AR); and Tester (MT). And one Democrat, newly elected Joe Manchin (WV) failed to show. To win on �cloture� 60 votes were needed no matter how many actually voted. Thus, a no-show counted as a �no� vote.
As the 111th Congress comes to its sputtering halt, at least on immigration, the question many are asking is whether there will be a real opportunity to bring up DREAM in the 112th. Looking forward, we face at least two enormous legislative challenges: First, the House will shift to Republican control with 242 Rs and 193 Ds. Last week the House passed DREAM on a 218-198 vote�you can bet your house we won�t muster a strong showing like that, let alone a majority, when the new session starts. Second, in the Senate, the Democrats will still have the majority but their margin of control will be 53-47 so getting the �yes� votes will also be harder in that chamber.
For many of us the source of continued inspiration has been to see all the DREAM activists walking the halls of the capitol and showing tremendous courage when they are the ones who have everything at risk. Let's keep a positive spirit for the future as the fight is not over yet.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/12/senate_fails_to_pass_dream_act.html)
dresses Dark-Ash-Blonde-Hair
yestogc
04-07 01:14 PM
See it does not matter who files, out of state or local. Main thing is if an RFE comes, will your company be willing to give him all details.............. you have to understand, with new attorney it is just you who is filing at the moment, so for just one case will the company give all his financial details (if asked for).
more...
makeup Ash Blonde With Blonde
newbie2020
09-05 05:08 AM
If you can go out of the country and return on L1 the new I-94 will take effect. COS should not impact, An attorney can advise better on this.
girlfriend I LOVE MY HAIR NOW ♥ no more
gcwait2007
10-21 10:18 AM
I am from Austin. I got my FP appointment scheduled on 11/13.
Labor PD: 02/20/2007, I-140 pending with Nebraska since 06/29/2007.
I submitted my I-485/765/131 on 8/1 to TSC and received by TSC on 8/2.
All Notice from TSC dtd 9/26
EAD card ordered on 10/3 and received on 10/10.
FP notice date 10/16 with appointment scheduled on 11/13 in San Antonio, TX.
No AP yet.
Labor PD: 02/20/2007, I-140 pending with Nebraska since 06/29/2007.
I submitted my I-485/765/131 on 8/1 to TSC and received by TSC on 8/2.
All Notice from TSC dtd 9/26
EAD card ordered on 10/3 and received on 10/10.
FP notice date 10/16 with appointment scheduled on 11/13 in San Antonio, TX.
No AP yet.
hairstyles house Color Chart Blonde Hair
babuworld
01-01 06:49 PM
Hi Team
Listen to this clip in this.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6705905&ft=1&f=1001
Thanks,
babuworld
Listen to this clip in this.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6705905&ft=1&f=1001
Thanks,
babuworld
rjgleason
February 1st, 2005, 08:36 AM
Juan Valdez drinks Costa Rican coffee.......:D
The best coffee in the world comes from CR......correct???
The best coffee in the world comes from CR......correct???
PDOCT05
11-16 03:12 PM
hi pdoc05,
thanks for the reply.
plz update me the status ...
urs sent TSC or NSC ?
thanks,
NSC..Sure I will as soon as I have one.
thanks for the reply.
plz update me the status ...
urs sent TSC or NSC ?
thanks,
NSC..Sure I will as soon as I have one.