lazycis
05-07 01:22 PM
from AC21 memo issued on December 27, 2005
Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?
Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for “same or similar” employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.
So find a new job before I-485 is approved.
Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?
Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for “same or similar” employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.
So find a new job before I-485 is approved.
wallpaper Some men; cheating love quotes
file485
04-10 07:29 PM
wellwishergc..
looks like u have some more knowledge in these matters. My ex employer got a 45day letter filed in Oct2003 EB2 case. they replied to go ahead with the case. When the labor approves and in a scenario, that employer has no project at the point of time to hire me back, can he file my 140 and then the 485...??
That employer is not a consulting company and thus needs a position for me and is a big-big company. If I request them they will file the 140, but will taht be okay if I am not working at that time...??
thx
looks like u have some more knowledge in these matters. My ex employer got a 45day letter filed in Oct2003 EB2 case. they replied to go ahead with the case. When the labor approves and in a scenario, that employer has no project at the point of time to hire me back, can he file my 140 and then the 485...??
That employer is not a consulting company and thus needs a position for me and is a big-big company. If I request them they will file the 140, but will taht be okay if I am not working at that time...??
thx
alterego
10-27 12:15 PM
It is precisely this type of ignorance and reluctance to address the real issues by both sides of the issue that makes our predicament so difficult to fix(as with many other policy issues that need fixing in this country). It is an almost insurmountable feat to get the policy makers and even the debaters on this issue to distinguish between the issues of illegal immigration and legal immigration in this country. This obfuscation is not by accident but by clear intent to serve each their specific interests.
Were that not the case, why don't these "we need to stand by the rule of law" enforcement types, call for an improvement in the situation for those "who have followed the law", simply put, it is only convenient for them to say that when they are speaking about the illegals, but alas they are against us legals as well................. so how can they ask anyone to believe that they are anything but anti immigrant period.
The pro immigrant guys blur the distinction specifically because they consider us a sweetener in the deal no less and no more they really don't consider the way we came any better or worse than the way others arrived, it is simply either all or none for them.
A rational policy that the American people can be asked to accept IMHO would involve, strict enforcement both at the border and interior at multiple sites including workplace, policies to alleviate the plight of the legals to demonstrate that way is rewarded and finally a strict case by case evaluation of illegals where some are given amnesty(if they have US children, spouse, lived here over X number of years and can prove it etc) Some will have to be made to have to leave to demonstrate that illegal behavior is not condoned or rewarded, be they Mexicans, Indians or Irish.
Alas, this cannot and will not be done due to the cowardice OF BOTH SIDES of this debate. Cowardice is sadly now changing to outright disdain for immigrants and that is sad in this great country of immigrants. Now the obfuscation will see a backlash emerging against us legals as well.
Were that not the case, why don't these "we need to stand by the rule of law" enforcement types, call for an improvement in the situation for those "who have followed the law", simply put, it is only convenient for them to say that when they are speaking about the illegals, but alas they are against us legals as well................. so how can they ask anyone to believe that they are anything but anti immigrant period.
The pro immigrant guys blur the distinction specifically because they consider us a sweetener in the deal no less and no more they really don't consider the way we came any better or worse than the way others arrived, it is simply either all or none for them.
A rational policy that the American people can be asked to accept IMHO would involve, strict enforcement both at the border and interior at multiple sites including workplace, policies to alleviate the plight of the legals to demonstrate that way is rewarded and finally a strict case by case evaluation of illegals where some are given amnesty(if they have US children, spouse, lived here over X number of years and can prove it etc) Some will have to be made to have to leave to demonstrate that illegal behavior is not condoned or rewarded, be they Mexicans, Indians or Irish.
Alas, this cannot and will not be done due to the cowardice OF BOTH SIDES of this debate. Cowardice is sadly now changing to outright disdain for immigrants and that is sad in this great country of immigrants. Now the obfuscation will see a backlash emerging against us legals as well.
2011 love quotes for girls to guys.
sobers
07-14 03:13 PM
Now that Shadegg's SKIL Bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committe...its in the hands of Sensenbrenner.
Shadegg is a top conservative and was supported by Sensenbrenner in his bid for Majority Leader earlier in the year. I found it interesting to read what he said about Shadegg earlier in the year, on the topic of immigration reform. Well, now is Sensenbrenner's chance to act upon it.
========
http://www.house.gov/sensenbrenner/pr20060118.html
Sensenbrenner Supports Shadegg for House Majority Leader
(Washington, DC) � Today, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls, WI), Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, announced that he is supporting John Shadegg (R-AZ) for Majority Leader.
Sensenbrenner said:
�I have given careful thought over the past few weeks on the three exceptional candidates running for Majority Leader and what new direction the Republican Conference needs to go. I have decided to support John Shadegg for Majority Leader.
�John Shadegg, as Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, has shown leadership on difficult issues, while building a consensus among the Republican Conference. John is the best choice for Majority Leader. I have worked closely with John for many months now on immigration reform, attending numerous unity dinners that John has held, listening to members throughout the Conference. These proved to be a valuable resource and shows that John Shadegg is the person who can listen and lead us in a new direction.�
Shadegg is a top conservative and was supported by Sensenbrenner in his bid for Majority Leader earlier in the year. I found it interesting to read what he said about Shadegg earlier in the year, on the topic of immigration reform. Well, now is Sensenbrenner's chance to act upon it.
========
http://www.house.gov/sensenbrenner/pr20060118.html
Sensenbrenner Supports Shadegg for House Majority Leader
(Washington, DC) � Today, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls, WI), Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, announced that he is supporting John Shadegg (R-AZ) for Majority Leader.
Sensenbrenner said:
�I have given careful thought over the past few weeks on the three exceptional candidates running for Majority Leader and what new direction the Republican Conference needs to go. I have decided to support John Shadegg for Majority Leader.
�John Shadegg, as Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, has shown leadership on difficult issues, while building a consensus among the Republican Conference. John is the best choice for Majority Leader. I have worked closely with John for many months now on immigration reform, attending numerous unity dinners that John has held, listening to members throughout the Conference. These proved to be a valuable resource and shows that John Shadegg is the person who can listen and lead us in a new direction.�
more...
ryan
02-03 04:09 PM
That is correct. Mixing and matching with certifications doesn't work. Although I don't know about CPA, if it goes towards professional degree.
Hey there, I have a three year bachelor's (from Australia) and an American CPA. I believe the two can be evaluated to an Ameircan Master's equivalent. Please, check with your lawyers. It should be possible.
Hey there, I have a three year bachelor's (from Australia) and an American CPA. I believe the two can be evaluated to an Ameircan Master's equivalent. Please, check with your lawyers. It should be possible.
justice4all
02-25 04:57 PM
This is the link.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/ac21-portability-after-180-days-485-filing/21472-student-aid-ead-stage.html
Hi akhilmaharajan,
I cant access the link. It opens a blank page. Can you tell me why?
thanks
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/ac21-portability-after-180-days-485-filing/21472-student-aid-ead-stage.html
Hi akhilmaharajan,
I cant access the link. It opens a blank page. Can you tell me why?
thanks
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
2010 love quotes for guys. quotes
ujjwal_p
06-10 02:19 AM
Received RFE for primary applicant (myself) and spouse.
Please submit evidence of lawful presence from October 1998 until August 17, 2007.
The documents may include the following:
A) a photo copy of form I-797 for all extensions and change of status
B) photo copy of form I-20 or IAP66 school records (front and back) including all school annotations
c) Photocopy (front and back) of applicant's Form I-94 Arrival/Departure Record
Below is my immigration timeline
CLASS ------ VALID FROM ------ VALID TO ------ Comments
H1-B -------- 5/16/1995 -------- 5/17/1998
H1-B -------- 5/17/1998 -------- 5/17/2001
H1-B -------- 12/23/1999 ------- 6/30/2001
H1-B -------- 7/1/2001 --------- 9/30/2001
0-1 --------- 10/3/2001 ------ 10/1/2004 ------ Stamped in Chennai
EAD --------- 8/4/2004 -------- 8/3/2005 ------- EB1 denied 1/15/2005
0-1 --------- 5/13/2005 ------- 5/12/2008 ------ Stamped in Chennai
0-1 --------- 4/3/2007 --------- 3/13/2010
0-1 ---------- 5/2/2207 --------- 5/12/2009
After 1/15/05 (EB-1 denial)
- Left the country on 6/15/05 (less than 6 months)
- During this time, applied for O-1 visa and got approved
- Got visa stamping in Chennai with O-1 visa
Do you see any issues with my response ?
Pretty long timeline and multiple visa types. Not sure how O-1 works and whether it is a dual intent visa. In any case, looks like the RFE is pretty straight forward and they only need the historical documents, possibly because the record is pretty long.
**- This is not legal advise.
Please submit evidence of lawful presence from October 1998 until August 17, 2007.
The documents may include the following:
A) a photo copy of form I-797 for all extensions and change of status
B) photo copy of form I-20 or IAP66 school records (front and back) including all school annotations
c) Photocopy (front and back) of applicant's Form I-94 Arrival/Departure Record
Below is my immigration timeline
CLASS ------ VALID FROM ------ VALID TO ------ Comments
H1-B -------- 5/16/1995 -------- 5/17/1998
H1-B -------- 5/17/1998 -------- 5/17/2001
H1-B -------- 12/23/1999 ------- 6/30/2001
H1-B -------- 7/1/2001 --------- 9/30/2001
0-1 --------- 10/3/2001 ------ 10/1/2004 ------ Stamped in Chennai
EAD --------- 8/4/2004 -------- 8/3/2005 ------- EB1 denied 1/15/2005
0-1 --------- 5/13/2005 ------- 5/12/2008 ------ Stamped in Chennai
0-1 --------- 4/3/2007 --------- 3/13/2010
0-1 ---------- 5/2/2207 --------- 5/12/2009
After 1/15/05 (EB-1 denial)
- Left the country on 6/15/05 (less than 6 months)
- During this time, applied for O-1 visa and got approved
- Got visa stamping in Chennai with O-1 visa
Do you see any issues with my response ?
Pretty long timeline and multiple visa types. Not sure how O-1 works and whether it is a dual intent visa. In any case, looks like the RFE is pretty straight forward and they only need the historical documents, possibly because the record is pretty long.
**- This is not legal advise.
more...
Madhuri
04-06 10:05 PM
Is the bill really dead? There is a different news on Yahoo.
Can anybody explain?
Can anybody explain?
hair quotes about guys and love.
pd_recapturing
07-09 10:03 PM
Applied PP on 29th, got RFE on 6th. They asked about 2006 W2. Sent the response and now waiting for approval.
more...
Pagal
07-19 09:37 AM
Hello,
Even as per Indian courts, the contract is valid only if mutually enforceable, which means that the company also needs to give you a two month's notice in case of termination.
Though there is very little risk, why burn the bridges? Be nice and negotiate a mutually agreed exit ... put in some extra hours if needed to transfer the knowledge or to answer any questions to your current job later on. I doubt if your current manager will turn down such an arrangement whereby you help him/her out when needed over a course of next two months...
For your career, the network is more important than the immediate monetary benefits, just my two cents... :)
Even as per Indian courts, the contract is valid only if mutually enforceable, which means that the company also needs to give you a two month's notice in case of termination.
Though there is very little risk, why burn the bridges? Be nice and negotiate a mutually agreed exit ... put in some extra hours if needed to transfer the knowledge or to answer any questions to your current job later on. I doubt if your current manager will turn down such an arrangement whereby you help him/her out when needed over a course of next two months...
For your career, the network is more important than the immediate monetary benefits, just my two cents... :)
hot love quotes for girls to guys.
tikka
06-22 09:30 AM
My laywer has adviced me that the skin test is mandatory
The Tb (skin test) is mandatory..
The Tb (skin test) is mandatory..
more...
house cheating love quotes. love
jo3350
05-13 10:16 AM
President Bush is going to be giving a speech on Immigration this Monday at 8 p.m EST. Is there any way IV can get the Issue of Legal Immikgration addressed in his speech.
tattoo quotes on guys. love quotes
fromnaija
03-24 12:49 PM
Thank you Mark how you rebuffed that stereotypical response on "being grateful to being here in this wonderful economy and enjoying such nice living conditions".
I really enjoyed the interview.
I really enjoyed the interview.
more...
pictures love quotes for guys. quotes
anandrajesh
12-26 09:14 AM
I'll be there. 9 CST works fine for me.
dresses quotes about guys being
.jpg "quotes about guys. love quotes")
pd_recapturing
04-04 03:25 PM
It also talks about 180 days rule. On the other hand, they are still sending denial notices to ppl whose 140 have been revoked by the employer.
"In most cases, the job offer in the Form I-140 must remain valid and available to the alien beneficiary until s/he obtains permanent resident status. In some limited circumstances, the law allows adjustment applicants to change employers without interrupting their eligibility for adjustment of status if the Form I-140 has been approved and the adjustment application has been pending for at least 180 days. USCIS recognizes that some workers may want to take advantage of this provision in the law and has increased its emphasis on processing the underlying employer petitions independent of the availability of a visa for the finalization of the adjustment of status application"
"In most cases, the job offer in the Form I-140 must remain valid and available to the alien beneficiary until s/he obtains permanent resident status. In some limited circumstances, the law allows adjustment applicants to change employers without interrupting their eligibility for adjustment of status if the Form I-140 has been approved and the adjustment application has been pending for at least 180 days. USCIS recognizes that some workers may want to take advantage of this provision in the law and has increased its emphasis on processing the underlying employer petitions independent of the availability of a visa for the finalization of the adjustment of status application"
more...
makeup quotes about guys cheating.
shishya
09-27 12:43 AM
Folks,
Am on H1B and have already applied for 485 (EB2 I May 2006). I am not sure if I am allowed to day trade in the current status. By day trading I mean not just investing in stocks and not just buying and selling stocks in a single day -- I am asking about making perhaps 10 trades in a day (5 rounds of buy, sell)? I understand IRS can call you out to be a full-time trader but the rules for this are not laid out clearly, as far as I can understand. Anyone out there with relevant links/personal experience on this one? Would really appreciate your feedback.
Thanks!
Shishya
Am on H1B and have already applied for 485 (EB2 I May 2006). I am not sure if I am allowed to day trade in the current status. By day trading I mean not just investing in stocks and not just buying and selling stocks in a single day -- I am asking about making perhaps 10 trades in a day (5 rounds of buy, sell)? I understand IRS can call you out to be a full-time trader but the rules for this are not laid out clearly, as far as I can understand. Anyone out there with relevant links/personal experience on this one? Would really appreciate your feedback.
Thanks!
Shishya
girlfriend 2010 quotes on girls love.
ps57002
01-30 04:49 PM
oops wrong post
hairstyles 2011 love quotes for girls to
pawnrule
01-15 01:00 PM
Hi,
I am in a similair situation where I have a US masters degress and 6+ years experience here. It seems like a complete waste of time to take the IELTS, after going through TOEFL and GRE to get admitted to a US university.
In any case, I plan on taking the test. I have a couple of questions regarding the test.
1. Which module should we take. Academic or General Training. It appears General Training is appropriate for immigration.
2. The scores have to be sent to a person and institution. Is this just the Buffalo office with the case number? Do we have to address it to a specific officer?
Thanks in advance for any responses.
I am in a similair situation where I have a US masters degress and 6+ years experience here. It seems like a complete waste of time to take the IELTS, after going through TOEFL and GRE to get admitted to a US university.
In any case, I plan on taking the test. I have a couple of questions regarding the test.
1. Which module should we take. Academic or General Training. It appears General Training is appropriate for immigration.
2. The scores have to be sent to a person and institution. Is this just the Buffalo office with the case number? Do we have to address it to a specific officer?
Thanks in advance for any responses.
skv
08-03 05:37 PM
Hi logiclife,
I agree with you. You're spot on. My other friend, please take a note of Logiclife's comments.
Do you have any sections from USCIS, which states that there is no need of job duties on the experience letter and just the job title and dates of employment will suffice. much appreciated. Thx.
What you did was creative (in a bad way). Sorta illegal. And sorta forgerish and borderline fraudulent. I am not judging you, I am just telling you how it sounds.
Now, how did you add material to the word document that was already signed? And therin lies the bad part.
Anyways, correspondence between USCIS and employer/lawyer/employee is always thru mail. I dont think they communicate thru faxes.
Now, if for some reason INS (and by the way, its USCIS now) came to know afterwards, then you are in a deep hole because it sounds like fraud. Fraud is grounds of denial of immigration benefits (any benefit, like H1, or GC or citizenship). Besides, roles and responsibilities are not really needed if the letter says that all conditions in labor cert and 140 are still valid and employment is still offered as per labor cert. Then you dont need detailed description of what you are doing. And even if you felt the urge to add that part in your letter, why didnt you just ask them that?
I agree with you. You're spot on. My other friend, please take a note of Logiclife's comments.
Do you have any sections from USCIS, which states that there is no need of job duties on the experience letter and just the job title and dates of employment will suffice. much appreciated. Thx.
What you did was creative (in a bad way). Sorta illegal. And sorta forgerish and borderline fraudulent. I am not judging you, I am just telling you how it sounds.
Now, how did you add material to the word document that was already signed? And therin lies the bad part.
Anyways, correspondence between USCIS and employer/lawyer/employee is always thru mail. I dont think they communicate thru faxes.
Now, if for some reason INS (and by the way, its USCIS now) came to know afterwards, then you are in a deep hole because it sounds like fraud. Fraud is grounds of denial of immigration benefits (any benefit, like H1, or GC or citizenship). Besides, roles and responsibilities are not really needed if the letter says that all conditions in labor cert and 140 are still valid and employment is still offered as per labor cert. Then you dont need detailed description of what you are doing. And even if you felt the urge to add that part in your letter, why didnt you just ask them that?
cinqsit
10-07 08:32 PM
Yes things are really bad. You are lucky that your company is even willing to consider filing eb2 other companies are not even filling willing to file eb3 perm. They dont want to apply any perm at all. On an average DOL is taking 9 months to approve perm, if it eb2 there is a good chace of getting audited and that will takes a couple of years.
As far as I know the business necessity statement is required whenever you apply for a Eb2 requirement (MS or bachelors+5) when according to DOL the job does not require a EB2 (basically the position you are applying for perm does not require EB2 but requires eb3 according to DOL but you are saying this position requires eb2 and not eb3). almost all jobs in IT according to DOL do not fall under EB2 they fall under Eb3, so every eb2 perm has a very good chance of getting audited. This situation has been further worsened by the economy and also the line cutters who try to jump from eb3 to eb2 by reapplying. DOL has caught on to this abuse just like they caught up with the labor sale(labor substitution) and abolished labor substitution. Similarly DOL is cracking down on any eb2 perm especially those who are reapplying. Before someone asks how does dol know you are trying to jump line by reapplying in Eb2, DOL knows because of the following information they ask in ETA form
"1. Are you seeking to utilize the filing date for a previously submitted application for Alien Employemnt Certification (ETA 750)?"
"1-A. If Yes, enter the previous filing date"
"2-A. "Indicate the previous SWA or local offiice case number OR, if not available, specify the state where case was originally filed:"
Nope! this is just some mis-information floating around - the question in the perm application form was useful when perm came into existence and was specifically for people who had traditional recruitment cases (remember TR) or RIR for that matter rotting in backlog reduction centers and who wanted to "upgrade" to better faster perm labor process and keep the same priority date
As far as I know the business necessity statement is required whenever you apply for a Eb2 requirement (MS or bachelors+5) when according to DOL the job does not require a EB2 (basically the position you are applying for perm does not require EB2 but requires eb3 according to DOL but you are saying this position requires eb2 and not eb3). almost all jobs in IT according to DOL do not fall under EB2 they fall under Eb3, so every eb2 perm has a very good chance of getting audited. This situation has been further worsened by the economy and also the line cutters who try to jump from eb3 to eb2 by reapplying. DOL has caught on to this abuse just like they caught up with the labor sale(labor substitution) and abolished labor substitution. Similarly DOL is cracking down on any eb2 perm especially those who are reapplying. Before someone asks how does dol know you are trying to jump line by reapplying in Eb2, DOL knows because of the following information they ask in ETA form
"1. Are you seeking to utilize the filing date for a previously submitted application for Alien Employemnt Certification (ETA 750)?"
"1-A. If Yes, enter the previous filing date"
"2-A. "Indicate the previous SWA or local offiice case number OR, if not available, specify the state where case was originally filed:"
Nope! this is just some mis-information floating around - the question in the perm application form was useful when perm came into existence and was specifically for people who had traditional recruitment cases (remember TR) or RIR for that matter rotting in backlog reduction centers and who wanted to "upgrade" to better faster perm labor process and keep the same priority date
No comments:
Post a Comment