texasdesi
01-10 12:25 AM
If i have labor and 140 approved with previous employer, can i go back to join them on H1B and continue GC process? Appreciate any advise. The new company is unable to start GC process due to economic conditions and capout date is Sept 2010.
wallpaper This entry was posted on
gc_wannabe
06-16 11:02 PM
Hi- When I started off with the green card process, I had not idea about what most of the things meant. I joined a very reputable Fortune 500 company in 2006 (the same year I came to the US on a H1B), and started my GC process in 2007. The company offered me an pre-approved labor with a 2006 PD, which had a matching requirement w.r.t job description and salary.
During July 2007, i filed for my I-140 and I-485. Subsequently, my I-140 got approved without any issues. Now, given that my priority date is close to being current (2/14/2006), I'm afraid if using a pre-approved labor will have any role to play with my I-485 approval.
And no, I'm not working for a consultant. And I have been with the same employer since 2006.
Thanks.
During July 2007, i filed for my I-140 and I-485. Subsequently, my I-140 got approved without any issues. Now, given that my priority date is close to being current (2/14/2006), I'm afraid if using a pre-approved labor will have any role to play with my I-485 approval.
And no, I'm not working for a consultant. And I have been with the same employer since 2006.
Thanks.
sk8er
11-28 11:24 PM
Hi,
1. What docs do I need to file I-140 ?
2. Do I need personal tax returns and from what year ?
3. Is 2010 tax return needed ?
1. What docs do I need to file I-140 ?
2. Do I need personal tax returns and from what year ?
3. Is 2010 tax return needed ?
2011 wallpaper trey songz shirtless
fittan
04-02 11:38 AM
Hi,
My I-140 was filed at VSC on 7/7/07. It was later transferred to TSC.
In this case, would I base my I-140 processing time on VSC which is stucked at 04/01/2006 or TSC which is at 08/15/2007?
I was hoping the later but I just called USCIS customer service and they said that A) it is based on WHERE YOU INITIALLY FILED and B) my application will eventually be sent back to VSC. I appreciate if someone can verify this. Thanks.
Fittan
My I-140 was filed at VSC on 7/7/07. It was later transferred to TSC.
In this case, would I base my I-140 processing time on VSC which is stucked at 04/01/2006 or TSC which is at 08/15/2007?
I was hoping the later but I just called USCIS customer service and they said that A) it is based on WHERE YOU INITIALLY FILED and B) my application will eventually be sent back to VSC. I appreciate if someone can verify this. Thanks.
Fittan
more...
GCard_Dream
04-30 02:26 PM
For those of you who either are residents (Citizens or PRs) or Canada or have been thinking about becoming residents of Canada but working in US, please share your experience in terms of:
1. How you maintain your residency (or non-residency) in both countries.
2. What are the tax implications if you maintain residency in both countries,
specially if you own property in Canada.
I have heard stories about tax implications in Canada if you own property there even if you permanently live an work in the US. Is that true? Would you be considered a resident in Canada for tax purposes just because you own property (such as vacation homes) but live permanently in US.
I currently own a property in Canada but have been living and working in US for past 8 years and really worried about any tax implications in Canada because of the property. Any help would be very much appreciated.
1. How you maintain your residency (or non-residency) in both countries.
2. What are the tax implications if you maintain residency in both countries,
specially if you own property in Canada.
I have heard stories about tax implications in Canada if you own property there even if you permanently live an work in the US. Is that true? Would you be considered a resident in Canada for tax purposes just because you own property (such as vacation homes) but live permanently in US.
I currently own a property in Canada but have been living and working in US for past 8 years and really worried about any tax implications in Canada because of the property. Any help would be very much appreciated.
tselva
07-20 11:30 AM
You can transfer your H1 to another company and you will get extension of same validity period (check your I94 Expriry period).
You can retain the priority date of your labour when you file I-140 in the new company.
By the way, why dont you start your I485 process now in the current company? You have lived with them for so long, 6 more months after applying I485, may not be a matter I think.....
Do not take a wrong decision.
You can retain the priority date of your labour when you file I-140 in the new company.
By the way, why dont you start your I485 process now in the current company? You have lived with them for so long, 6 more months after applying I485, may not be a matter I think.....
Do not take a wrong decision.
more...
vpadman
12-13 06:36 PM
Applied AP on August 15,2007.
Notice Date is October 10, 2007.
Still waiting for AP
Notice Date is October 10, 2007.
Still waiting for AP
2010 hair 2010 trey songz
uvreddi
12-04 10:03 AM
Hello Everyone,
Iam an H4 transferred to H1B. I am on H1B since one year. My pay is less than the one mentioned in LCA, but more than the prevailing wages. My job profile also includes some part of salary as comission, which I would get at the end of the year. This is apart from the salary Iam receiving right now (greater than the prevailing wage and less than LCA). Do I face any problem if I happen to go for H1B visa stamp. Could you also suggest me how to defend myself if I am asked the difference in the salary by visa officer. Thanking you all in advance.
Iam an H4 transferred to H1B. I am on H1B since one year. My pay is less than the one mentioned in LCA, but more than the prevailing wages. My job profile also includes some part of salary as comission, which I would get at the end of the year. This is apart from the salary Iam receiving right now (greater than the prevailing wage and less than LCA). Do I face any problem if I happen to go for H1B visa stamp. Could you also suggest me how to defend myself if I am asked the difference in the salary by visa officer. Thanking you all in advance.
more...
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
hair trey songz shirtless 2009.
IN2US
07-10 06:25 PM
We are posting media coverage on this thread. Just posted an article from Reuters there!
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6305
-- I got that, I'm talking about TV Broadcast since this morning???
lets hope we get some PrimeTime in major channels.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6305
-- I got that, I'm talking about TV Broadcast since this morning???
lets hope we get some PrimeTime in major channels.
more...
pappu
03-28 03:36 PM
Immigration Voice (IVpappu) on Twitter (http://twitter.com/IVpappu)
hot trey songz shirtless. songz
roseball
09-26 12:21 PM
In this case, her H4 status is still active, right? We dont have to leave the country and re-enter again. Please advise.
more...
house wallpaper trey songz shirtless
Raj3
12-14 03:30 PM
HI,
My company is processing my Green card and recently applied my I-140. My wife is applying for residency this year. Most of hospitals are saying that they can sponsor only a J-1 visa. Can you please suggest if this would be a problem for my Green Card processing and/or her visa stamping (Since applying for G.C means that we wants to stay and J-1 means the other way round)?
Thanks,
-Raj.
My company is processing my Green card and recently applied my I-140. My wife is applying for residency this year. Most of hospitals are saying that they can sponsor only a J-1 visa. Can you please suggest if this would be a problem for my Green Card processing and/or her visa stamping (Since applying for G.C means that we wants to stay and J-1 means the other way round)?
Thanks,
-Raj.
tattoo dresses trey songz wallpaper
a_yaja
01-17 04:23 PM
Hi
My company is converting my L1B to a L1A.I wanted to know if i can apply for a green card independently after my L1A has bee approved or does my company needs to process that application.
Thanks
All Employment Based green card has to be petitioned by the employer. So in your case, you would need to ask you employer to start the process. Only exception are people with "extrodinary ability" (the David Beckham's and Michael J Fox's) and people who fall under "National Interest Waiver" category (EB1 only - people who hold a Ph.D.).
My company is converting my L1B to a L1A.I wanted to know if i can apply for a green card independently after my L1A has bee approved or does my company needs to process that application.
Thanks
All Employment Based green card has to be petitioned by the employer. So in your case, you would need to ask you employer to start the process. Only exception are people with "extrodinary ability" (the David Beckham's and Michael J Fox's) and people who fall under "National Interest Waiver" category (EB1 only - people who hold a Ph.D.).
more...
pictures thu 12/24/2009
GC_1000Watt
01-04 10:55 PM
Hello Gurus,
Please let me know where can I book an appointment for H1B visa extension stamping in Canada and/or Mexico.
Also if you have recently been there for stamping then please share your experience.
The documents that are being asked for and the current trend etc.
thanks in advance.
Please let me know where can I book an appointment for H1B visa extension stamping in Canada and/or Mexico.
Also if you have recently been there for stamping then please share your experience.
The documents that are being asked for and the current trend etc.
thanks in advance.
dresses trey songz shirtless
kumar1
12-17 05:49 PM
There is a retrogression in perm process..only those who came to this country before 2000 can file for PERM.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
kidding man.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
kidding man.
more...
makeup trey songz shirtless photos.
Blog Feeds
08-11 10:10 AM
H1B Visa Lawyer Blog Has Just Posted the Following:
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Processing Times were released with processing dates as of August 1, 2010.
If you filed an appeal, please review the links below to determine the applicable processing time associated with your particular case.
Administrative Appeals Office (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=32830)
The current processing time for an I-129 H-1B Appeal is 13 months. The current processing time for an I-140 EB2 Appeal for an Advanced Degree Professional is 24 months; for an I-140EB3 Appeal for a Skilled or Professional Worker is 25 months.
Most other cases are within USCIS's processing time goal of 6 months or less.
More... (http://www.h1bvisalawyerblog.com/2010/08/administrative_appeals_office_6.html)
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Processing Times were released with processing dates as of August 1, 2010.
If you filed an appeal, please review the links below to determine the applicable processing time associated with your particular case.
Administrative Appeals Office (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=32830)
The current processing time for an I-129 H-1B Appeal is 13 months. The current processing time for an I-140 EB2 Appeal for an Advanced Degree Professional is 24 months; for an I-140EB3 Appeal for a Skilled or Professional Worker is 25 months.
Most other cases are within USCIS's processing time goal of 6 months or less.
More... (http://www.h1bvisalawyerblog.com/2010/08/administrative_appeals_office_6.html)
girlfriend hair hair 2010 trey songz trey songz shirtless 2009.
isthereawayout
05-20 05:24 PM
When I joined my employer, I had MS+2 years of experience, but my lawyer applied to me under the EB3 category which had MS+2 as an alternate qualification. I submitted the experience letters from my previous employers.
Now, my company is willing to upgrade from EB3 to EB2 and have a position that requires MS+2, but the job responsibilities is a little different from the EB3 job.
If I apply for this position, will the USCIS accept the experience letters submitted earlier?
Now, my company is willing to upgrade from EB3 to EB2 and have a position that requires MS+2, but the job responsibilities is a little different from the EB3 job.
If I apply for this position, will the USCIS accept the experience letters submitted earlier?
hairstyles hairstyles trey songz shirtless 2011. trey songz shirtless 2011. trey songz
black_logs
01-30 09:30 PM
I am recalling TX from the States Calling List. Lot of People from AZ/CO/WA signed up allready I don't want a mess in the conference, rather I would like everyone to be able to speak. We'll do Texas conference on Thursday 10PM EST (02/02/2006)
simmivoice
03-25 04:22 PM
Hi,
I appreciate if someone could answer the following question.
I am a Java Developer and I think my company would have filed my labor as a Programmer Analyst. Now I am planning to change my career into SAP functional analyst in financials. I even got a offer from a client and I think their job title and description definitely different.
1) Once I leave my current employer, should I need to work on same job profile or only at the time of GC interview I should have a offer from any employer with same job title & description? (assuming GC will take another 2 or 3 years for me to get and If I work these 2 or 3 years on different job title & description and produce a offer letter with same job title & description from a new employer at the time of GC interview)
If later is correct, then I can produce a offer letter with same job title & description from a new employer.
I appreciate if someone could answer the following question.
I am a Java Developer and I think my company would have filed my labor as a Programmer Analyst. Now I am planning to change my career into SAP functional analyst in financials. I even got a offer from a client and I think their job title and description definitely different.
1) Once I leave my current employer, should I need to work on same job profile or only at the time of GC interview I should have a offer from any employer with same job title & description? (assuming GC will take another 2 or 3 years for me to get and If I work these 2 or 3 years on different job title & description and produce a offer letter with same job title & description from a new employer at the time of GC interview)
If later is correct, then I can produce a offer letter with same job title & description from a new employer.
agc2005
12-13 08:35 AM
sinv:
There should be a option to modify the the Application. I guess you can't modify PassportNo, Name etc.. But you can modify education details.
There should be a option to modify the the Application. I guess you can't modify PassportNo, Name etc.. But you can modify education details.
No comments:
Post a Comment