she81
07-27 08:58 PM
Can't you upgrade your 140 application to premium (when it becomes available) in that case? Just for peace of mind.
I 140 and 485 filed concurrently.
Let's say I 140 is approved after 200 (greater than 180) days, If employer revokes I 140 after 230 days (let's say he is pissed off that i left the company using Ac 21 portability)
will it create any issue for my GC ?
I 140 and 485 filed concurrently.
Let's say I 140 is approved after 200 (greater than 180) days, If employer revokes I 140 after 230 days (let's say he is pissed off that i left the company using Ac 21 portability)
will it create any issue for my GC ?
wallpaper pictures Prince William And
hope2007
04-18 11:32 PM
I spoke to company attorney they said as long as job description is same and it is commutable distance then you can change job location. There will not be any problem and you do not have to come back to original work location.
Hermione
09-27 10:07 AM
The article says: "After all, if the legal process was more efficient and less daunting, perhaps the illegal immigration problems wouldn't be quite so bad."
I say, it is not perhaps, it is a given. When there is a legal remedy for any issue (not just immigration), then 9 out of 10 people would not go the illegal way.
This is very much correct. And it is also the reason to position fixing immigration system as a remedy for both legal and illegal immigration. If you propose a help for legal immigrants, lawmakers are not going to listen to you as much as if you proposed something that fixes both legal immigration and encourages less illegal immigration in the future. It is that simple.
I say, it is not perhaps, it is a given. When there is a legal remedy for any issue (not just immigration), then 9 out of 10 people would not go the illegal way.
This is very much correct. And it is also the reason to position fixing immigration system as a remedy for both legal and illegal immigration. If you propose a help for legal immigrants, lawmakers are not going to listen to you as much as if you proposed something that fixes both legal immigration and encourages less illegal immigration in the future. It is that simple.
2011 Prince William amp; Kate#39;s
trramesh
11-12 02:59 PM
Guys,
Pls participate in the survey for your own good. We need these figures to show the worth of our community to whom it may matter.
Pls participate in the survey for your own good. We need these figures to show the worth of our community to whom it may matter.
more...
pappu
12-19 03:15 PM
Thank you paskal.
amitga
02-15 11:29 AM
The best way to generate Revenue is to attract Advertisements on IV website. There is lot of traffic in IV from Indians and Chinese and some people from ROW.
IV can create a job board which where employers who are willing to Hire H1B can post the jobs and pay a fraction of Fee compared to other job boards. That will increase the membership also. Also we can charge a fee from people who want to search and find Jobs.
IV can create a job board which where employers who are willing to Hire H1B can post the jobs and pay a fraction of Fee compared to other job boards. That will increase the membership also. Also we can charge a fee from people who want to search and find Jobs.
more...
GCPagla
03-15 10:16 PM
hi,
Thanks for your reply. But how is it possible to get a word to word match in job description in an offer letter? When you get a job the new company words for the offer letter. As your job will be similar you will have common words like "develop", "analyze" "test" etc. But how the whole thing matches word to word. Is it possible to request the new employer to phrase the offer letter as per you LC description? Can they entertain such request?
I would appreciate if anyone who invoked Ac21 can help
Thanks for your reply. But how is it possible to get a word to word match in job description in an offer letter? When you get a job the new company words for the offer letter. As your job will be similar you will have common words like "develop", "analyze" "test" etc. But how the whole thing matches word to word. Is it possible to request the new employer to phrase the offer letter as per you LC description? Can they entertain such request?
I would appreciate if anyone who invoked Ac21 can help
2010 Prince William amp; Kate
purgan
10-04 01:31 AM
There are many people on this forum who have been waiting for 5 years or more. No one can predict when you will get the GC- such is the beauty of the EB Immigration System.
more...
waitingnwaiting
01-19 04:02 PM
I think this is indeed a great idea.... but it might be difficult to get this information. Let me start by giving one name...
1) waitingwating
Others pls add more if you know:D:D
Not funny.
If an EB3 is so good he will not apply in EB3. He will apply in EB1. I am asking about people who were EB3 but became big after getting Green Card.
1) waitingwating
Others pls add more if you know:D:D
Not funny.
If an EB3 is so good he will not apply in EB3. He will apply in EB1. I am asking about people who were EB3 but became big after getting Green Card.
hair 2010 Prince William Kate
go_guy123
01-20 11:32 AM
(1) Would CHC will vote yes on health care without any coverage for illegal and since CIR may not happen
(2) If CIR fails why would CHC supports us in piecemeal..
to me if no CIR then no piecemeal..
Answer to 2)
CHC only wants amnesty for illegals. They don't care about skilled immigration.
They hold the SKIL etc hostage to CIR. But CIR is impossible.
CHC will never support on piecemeal. But as Democratic party loses power , CHC power also reduces.
Moreover the CIR coalition also weakens with failures.
(2) If CIR fails why would CHC supports us in piecemeal..
to me if no CIR then no piecemeal..
Answer to 2)
CHC only wants amnesty for illegals. They don't care about skilled immigration.
They hold the SKIL etc hostage to CIR. But CIR is impossible.
CHC will never support on piecemeal. But as Democratic party loses power , CHC power also reduces.
Moreover the CIR coalition also weakens with failures.
more...
pappu
08-14 09:54 AM
The IV Advocacy kit is now available to all donors and state chapter leaders. Please contact your state chapter leaders to get the kit.
hot Prince-William-and-Kate-
boreal
09-23 12:07 PM
Hi boreal,
I had a problem with my wifes AP- they had not acted on it for 4 months I asked them to expedite it since we wanted to visit my father in law who was hospitalized for a medical condition- they did not respond to that request so I contacted my Senators office and asked if they could assist in this matter. They asked me for some medical documentation and faxed it to USCIS.. I noticed yesterday that her online status had changed to document mailed..we are still to get it but are optimistic that we should receive it soon.
In the absence of any compelling circumstances though I am not sure how it would work. but I would definitely recommend contacting your Senators office.
Thanks seeking_GC..i dont have such emergencies though...not visiting home country for four years probably wont qualify as an emergency :-)
I had a problem with my wifes AP- they had not acted on it for 4 months I asked them to expedite it since we wanted to visit my father in law who was hospitalized for a medical condition- they did not respond to that request so I contacted my Senators office and asked if they could assist in this matter. They asked me for some medical documentation and faxed it to USCIS.. I noticed yesterday that her online status had changed to document mailed..we are still to get it but are optimistic that we should receive it soon.
In the absence of any compelling circumstances though I am not sure how it would work. but I would definitely recommend contacting your Senators office.
Thanks seeking_GC..i dont have such emergencies though...not visiting home country for four years probably wont qualify as an emergency :-)
more...
house prince william and kate
kak1978
06-04 10:06 AM
I had a account in Bank of America, and they sent me a letter when i asked them to send a "Account verification letter for Immigration purposes" They charged me $10 for that and took around a week. See if you can open a account at a local bank and try transfering the money to that account, Before you decide on opening a account , confirm if they issue such a letter.
tattoo prince-william-and-kate-
uma001
08-21 09:28 AM
Congratulations
more...
pictures Kate Wedding Dress For The
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.
dresses prince william kate middleton
xyzgc
10-13 11:10 PM
how abt dressing up as a mickey? they'll love u for it..;)
more...
makeup Prince William - Kate
DirCls
07-15 06:18 AM
I am in Houston
girlfriend Prince William amp; Kate
deejk
03-10 11:11 AM
They started it from March 4, 2011. I have asked the USCIS representative when i called today about when they are starting the Secure Mail Initiative to track Green Card/EAD. The procedure is still the same, if its lost in mail, you will have to file I-90. But atleast you will know if it has been mailed, to which city, state, zipcode it has been mailed to.
hairstyles prince william and kate
rc10580
06-13 03:06 PM
South of Brazil sounds good to me but my husband is not open to it and he is the one who is Brazilian :rolleyes:
He is much more in favor of Europe and since I have EU passport we can basically live anywhere and he would be able to work the next day :D I feel like I have put so much effort into this by now that I'm not walking away this close. We will hang on and make decisions once we have GC and options to chose. You are so close! Don't give up now after waiting so long! Is your situation at work that bad? Is your wife working?
He is much more in favor of Europe and since I have EU passport we can basically live anywhere and he would be able to work the next day :D I feel like I have put so much effort into this by now that I'm not walking away this close. We will hang on and make decisions once we have GC and options to chose. You are so close! Don't give up now after waiting so long! Is your situation at work that bad? Is your wife working?
ivgclive
04-21 01:31 PM
There was lot of talk in the past about lawsuit against USCIS against Porting and moving dates slowly etc.
Has anything been done yet?
This is something like filing a law suite against Manmohan Singh for having inefficient ministers under his goverment.
Hire a top attorney, paying him half of your earnings to get an answer from the court saying that "thats how things work".
Has anything been done yet?
This is something like filing a law suite against Manmohan Singh for having inefficient ministers under his goverment.
Hire a top attorney, paying him half of your earnings to get an answer from the court saying that "thats how things work".
GCBy3000
07-25 12:36 PM
This is under ideal conditions. How many 485 has complications and how many are not arranged properly. They have to consider everything. Just to get the papers right for review might take several hours. In between, they may be called for meeting, smoke break, tea break. So give them some slack. Two applications per day is good enough work for an employee considering each app has one or two dependends.
Last but not least, the ex-director or USCIS is an anti-immigrant and was member of an active anti-immigrant group. Now you go and figure how USCIS will work. Even if numbersusa is good enough to take 10% of USCIS into their org, we are screwd and they are doing it already.
Last but not least, the ex-director or USCIS is an anti-immigrant and was member of an active anti-immigrant group. Now you go and figure how USCIS will work. Even if numbersusa is good enough to take 10% of USCIS into their org, we are screwd and they are doing it already.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar