guyfromsg
07-17 09:50 PM
Hi,
My I-140 approved in TSC( premium processing)
My Attorney sent my I-485 on July 2 to TSC
my labor approved from Wisconsin
but I read somewhere all applications needs to go to NSC , is it true?
I greatly appreciate your help
Lawyer says that should not be a problem. My 140 is pending in TSC, could that be a reason don't know.
My I-140 approved in TSC( premium processing)
My Attorney sent my I-485 on July 2 to TSC
my labor approved from Wisconsin
but I read somewhere all applications needs to go to NSC , is it true?
I greatly appreciate your help
Lawyer says that should not be a problem. My 140 is pending in TSC, could that be a reason don't know.
wallpaper slogans for each year,
gc_bulgaria
02-12 02:47 PM
I would think Cross-Charegeability is automatic. I mean if one spouse is birth country India/China and one is ROW, I would think cross charegeability is automatic but then again not a 100% sure.
Oh no - Its not automatic. You would think there would be a better way than write on cover sheet in BOLD but even though its in their own law, it is not easy to get it applied (especially with TSC).
Oh no - Its not automatic. You would think there would be a better way than write on cover sheet in BOLD but even though its in their own law, it is not easy to get it applied (especially with TSC).
optimystic
05-12 08:36 PM
There are certain things that money cannot buy [for everything else there is Master card :) ].
Seriously, If $2000 dollars would buy you a GC (guaranteed) then I think most (> 90%) of the people on this forum would have gone for that (or atleast convince their employers to part with that amount for a guaranteed ROI)
It would be good to get some kind of insight into the thought process of IV core/lead team and how they think they can put a million dollars to effective use?
I mean can we lobby/cultivate our own caucus (not cactus :D) from the ground up in the congress etc, who can work for our cause? What other such effective things can be done?
Any kind of roadmap/plan of action that would probably help generate an interest and convince atleast some people to start donating.
Just saw this on cnet .
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9941962-7.html?tag=nefd.top
"The Hispanic Caucus sees it as a bargaining chip to get what they want, which is comprehensive immigration reform, amnesty for illegal immigrants, whatever you want to call it," Fishman said. "Until the Democratic leadership allows legislation (related to H-1Bs) to go to the floor on its own merits, that's the situation we have here."
Though this is only about H1-B, but I would guess, that caucus would be looking at even other legal immigration/GC related proposals, amendments that come thru and try their best to piggy back on them to further their own agenda. To be able to effectively push legal immigration related laws/changes on their own merit and not held back in one common basket, we might need an equally powerful legal immigration/H1B caucus out there.
But how to get there? Will million dollars help?
Thats the million dollar question currently on everyone's mind I guess :D
Seriously, If $2000 dollars would buy you a GC (guaranteed) then I think most (> 90%) of the people on this forum would have gone for that (or atleast convince their employers to part with that amount for a guaranteed ROI)
It would be good to get some kind of insight into the thought process of IV core/lead team and how they think they can put a million dollars to effective use?
I mean can we lobby/cultivate our own caucus (not cactus :D) from the ground up in the congress etc, who can work for our cause? What other such effective things can be done?
Any kind of roadmap/plan of action that would probably help generate an interest and convince atleast some people to start donating.
Just saw this on cnet .
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9941962-7.html?tag=nefd.top
"The Hispanic Caucus sees it as a bargaining chip to get what they want, which is comprehensive immigration reform, amnesty for illegal immigrants, whatever you want to call it," Fishman said. "Until the Democratic leadership allows legislation (related to H-1Bs) to go to the floor on its own merits, that's the situation we have here."
Though this is only about H1-B, but I would guess, that caucus would be looking at even other legal immigration/GC related proposals, amendments that come thru and try their best to piggy back on them to further their own agenda. To be able to effectively push legal immigration related laws/changes on their own merit and not held back in one common basket, we might need an equally powerful legal immigration/H1B caucus out there.
But how to get there? Will million dollars help?
Thats the million dollar question currently on everyone's mind I guess :D
2011 The following are slogans and
kp9999
03-31 05:36 PM
Hi
I am trying to do a H1B transfer from my current employer.I am searching for a good employer(consulting firm) in Atlanta,GA area..
Can anyone advise me on a good employer.I heard that Pyramid Consulting is one big vendor in atlanta..Any inputs about Pyramid is greatly appreciated..Or any other good vendors in atlanta area?
Thanks
kp
I am trying to do a H1B transfer from my current employer.I am searching for a good employer(consulting firm) in Atlanta,GA area..
Can anyone advise me on a good employer.I heard that Pyramid Consulting is one big vendor in atlanta..Any inputs about Pyramid is greatly appreciated..Or any other good vendors in atlanta area?
Thanks
kp
more...
obelix
03-02 11:38 AM
Looks like your PD is current. You might get your GC anytime. That is another factor I would consider if your GC gets approved before you get married.
Filing six months in advance seems to be a better idea.
Thanks for your input. I had incorrect information attached under my signature. I've not even started GC filing yet.
Filing six months in advance seems to be a better idea.
Thanks for your input. I had incorrect information attached under my signature. I've not even started GC filing yet.
dazed378
03-28 02:47 PM
Thanks, snathan.
Is not it strange that IRS processed the tax refund before completing the ITIN processing? They could not confirm the current status of my wife's ITIN processing, as they could not pull out any details about the W-7 based on the information provided by me. They only guessed that it might be still undergoing processing. I wonder if they misplaced the W-7 form or something like that :-(.
Is not it strange that IRS processed the tax refund before completing the ITIN processing? They could not confirm the current status of my wife's ITIN processing, as they could not pull out any details about the W-7 based on the information provided by me. They only guessed that it might be still undergoing processing. I wonder if they misplaced the W-7 form or something like that :-(.
more...
baburob2
02-16 01:17 PM
Hi Logiclife
The 2004-2005 more usuage of EB visas for Indians is done because those were approved through AC21's unused visas i believe between 1999-2000 which are quota independent and not just from the annual quota of 140K. Hence in 2004-2005 there were more usuage. Starting from 2006 only thing left is the annual quota of 140K with per country quota of 7% at the max which has to be split among several EB categories in some proportions (roughly 1/3 among EB1, EB2, Eb3).The spillovers within 7% alone can be redistributed within a country's EB quota in the final quarter of the year. Hence the max India can get is 7% no matter how much gets spilled over from the rest of the world. THe only way to get the spillover back into the picture is another law enactment everytime it happens to get it back which is slow and painful process. Hence in nutshell to remove retrogression the easiest way is to remove country cap is or increase it . Else it is always going to stay even if annual quota is increased or through anyother measures. Hence I would recommend positively IV to focus on doing it and not mere increasing the quota.
The 2004-2005 more usuage of EB visas for Indians is done because those were approved through AC21's unused visas i believe between 1999-2000 which are quota independent and not just from the annual quota of 140K. Hence in 2004-2005 there were more usuage. Starting from 2006 only thing left is the annual quota of 140K with per country quota of 7% at the max which has to be split among several EB categories in some proportions (roughly 1/3 among EB1, EB2, Eb3).The spillovers within 7% alone can be redistributed within a country's EB quota in the final quarter of the year. Hence the max India can get is 7% no matter how much gets spilled over from the rest of the world. THe only way to get the spillover back into the picture is another law enactment everytime it happens to get it back which is slow and painful process. Hence in nutshell to remove retrogression the easiest way is to remove country cap is or increase it . Else it is always going to stay even if annual quota is increased or through anyother measures. Hence I would recommend positively IV to focus on doing it and not mere increasing the quota.
2010 toulouse political slogans 3
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.
more...
alterego
04-11 04:59 PM
I would definitely be cautious about the plan you have mentioned. Here is the reason. You applied as an attending/practicing hospitalist through labor for a future job offer and you are moving into a trainee position. Should you be called for an interview or get a RFE at the AOS stage(not that uncommon nowadays), you would have to demonstrate how it is that doing an oncology fellowship better qualifies you to be a future hospitalist. That would be difficult. You could take a chance and get away but know that you will be taking one.
Even in cases of Physician NIW when you have completed the stipulated 5 yr commitment, lawyers are unwilling to give the all clear to do a fellowship on the EAD. They seem to be in consensus that you can move into another attending internist job but that is as far as they will go.
Even in cases of Physician NIW when you have completed the stipulated 5 yr commitment, lawyers are unwilling to give the all clear to do a fellowship on the EAD. They seem to be in consensus that you can move into another attending internist job but that is as far as they will go.
hair Because it#39;s a good slogan!
nixstor
11-04 02:27 PM
Here's my exact situation:
- My employer is company A
- I am assigned by Company A to Company B (corp-to-corp)
- Company B assigned me to Client X
- I want to move to Company Z
- Company Z would assign me to the same Client X
My non-compete clause says something like... Employee(I) cannot work to client of Company A within 1 year of leaving Company A
Now, is client X considered as client of company A? I'm thinking that company B is the client of company A. Thus, it should be okay if I move to company Z and be assigned to client X.
Any thoughts?
It depends on how big the company is. Companies like Bearingpoint, Accenture will take them seriously some times. If this is just yet another staffing firm, they are not going to waste their money for a lawyer and time on you. As others said, these contract papers have no value. (unless they spent like 10K on training you outside of the company).
- My employer is company A
- I am assigned by Company A to Company B (corp-to-corp)
- Company B assigned me to Client X
- I want to move to Company Z
- Company Z would assign me to the same Client X
My non-compete clause says something like... Employee(I) cannot work to client of Company A within 1 year of leaving Company A
Now, is client X considered as client of company A? I'm thinking that company B is the client of company A. Thus, it should be okay if I move to company Z and be assigned to client X.
Any thoughts?
It depends on how big the company is. Companies like Bearingpoint, Accenture will take them seriously some times. If this is just yet another staffing firm, they are not going to waste their money for a lawyer and time on you. As others said, these contract papers have no value. (unless they spent like 10K on training you outside of the company).
more...
diptam
09-26 04:50 PM
Even if your employer revokes I-140 the PD is locked - Make sure you have a Copy of 140 approval Receipt Notice and a copy of the Labor PD. When you file new GC or 485 application just ask your company's lawyer to slip in the old 140 instead of new 140.
This is a real cool feature but make sure you have to maintain H status all the time - i'm here for 9 yrs and whenever i think about these maverick cool steps i stop at the point of H transfer , extension and fear of getting H denied.
If employer revokes I-140 (even after 180 days) and I-485 get denied, you lose your old PD. So it's not set in stone.
This is a real cool feature but make sure you have to maintain H status all the time - i'm here for 9 yrs and whenever i think about these maverick cool steps i stop at the point of H transfer , extension and fear of getting H denied.
If employer revokes I-140 (even after 180 days) and I-485 get denied, you lose your old PD. So it's not set in stone.
hot slogans on love.
wandmaker
06-10 01:36 AM
you better consult a very good attorney rather than asking for someone give you expert opinion.:eek:
more...
house with quotes. est love
funny
09-16 02:27 PM
Don't forget to CALL guys..
tattoo promotional love slogans
mhtanim
10-08 06:13 PM
Interesting question! Logically, as soon as a H4 holder starts using EAD the H4 becomes invalid. As long as the primary is in valid H1B status, the dependent should be able get back to H4 status even if the 485 is denied.
However, I am not sure how someone can changes status from AOS (due to using EAD) to H4. May be getting out of the U.S. and come back as H4 again? Anybody has any idea?
However, I am not sure how someone can changes status from AOS (due to using EAD) to H4. May be getting out of the U.S. and come back as H4 again? Anybody has any idea?
more...
pictures hot love you my friend quotes.
sorcerer666
03-31 04:17 PM
Have you ever participated any of the IV's campaign on various issues. Have you ever volunteered your time or donated money.
If no, you deserve this and rot in hell. There is no solution and you people are running to IV only when disastor strikes. But its too late.
If you cannot get the original contract nothing can be done...
So by your logic, if he had contributed to IV his visa would've been issued no questions asked?? And he won't deserve help coz he didnt contribute?? Man I feel sorry for your selfish attitude!!
If no, you deserve this and rot in hell. There is no solution and you people are running to IV only when disastor strikes. But its too late.
If you cannot get the original contract nothing can be done...
So by your logic, if he had contributed to IV his visa would've been issued no questions asked?? And he won't deserve help coz he didnt contribute?? Man I feel sorry for your selfish attitude!!
dresses hair girlfriend love quotes
sanjay02
07-25 07:36 PM
Sanjay:
Most likely you will not have to do anything further and your application will be approved when the Visa Bulletin reaches your priority date. However it will depend on how long it is before that date is reached. you may have to be fingerprinted again, as the fingerprint checks are only valid for 18 months. Also, if the wait is long enough, USCIS may want you to go for another interview to make sure you are still eligible.
Thnks for the answer, I havent heard of any one being interviewed twice. Once date get current, do I have to go to local USCIS office , after I take infopass?
Most likely you will not have to do anything further and your application will be approved when the Visa Bulletin reaches your priority date. However it will depend on how long it is before that date is reached. you may have to be fingerprinted again, as the fingerprint checks are only valid for 18 months. Also, if the wait is long enough, USCIS may want you to go for another interview to make sure you are still eligible.
Thnks for the answer, I havent heard of any one being interviewed twice. Once date get current, do I have to go to local USCIS office , after I take infopass?
more...
makeup i love you quotes. cute i
GCKaMaara
10-15 11:58 AM
I think that is the humanitarian parole......but there have been over aggressive officers at the POE who mix up the two......
My suggestion to you is use your H1B(if possible) or take an infopass and get an expedited AP.
I Second this idea.
My suggestion to you is use your H1B(if possible) or take an infopass and get an expedited AP.
I Second this idea.
girlfriend I LOVE YOU BABY FOREVER QUOTES
spicy_guy
04-08 04:58 PM
I believe the intention of not moving too much beyond jul 06 , may be to make some spill over benfit happen to EB3 also. If they open the gate for EB2 now, lots of 485 application may come in and there may not be spill over to EB3. :)
Krupa
See how bad EB3 I shape is...
7,100 until 2002 Dec. That means, 2.5+ years before it hits Jan 1, 2003.
What about the people with PD > 2005. 33,400 / 2800 per year. 11+ years. :)
Retire!
Krupa
See how bad EB3 I shape is...
7,100 until 2002 Dec. That means, 2.5+ years before it hits Jan 1, 2003.
What about the people with PD > 2005. 33,400 / 2800 per year. 11+ years. :)
Retire!
hairstyles Short Love Quotes: picture of
razis123
06-16 10:13 AM
Do RFE's for qualification and requirements comes only for LC or 140? I am with a similar profile but got LC and 140 approved and already filed for 485 last year. How much probablity is there that i might get an RFE for this for my 485 adjudication?
education and experience requirements are tied to a position, not to the person. So the LC is going to look into whether the position of a systems analyst requires a masters, and if it does what kind (as the minimum requriements). At I-140 they see if YOU match the position for which the LC has been approved. If the LC said systems-analyst needs a masters in computer-science or electrical engineering, then you will have a problem.
You can potentially get two questions in the RFE:
- why does the job need a Masters (EB2 justification for LC)
- why does a masters in mechanical engineering satisfy the requirement of a masters for a system analyst position (whether you meet the requirement, at I-140 stage).
Since you yourself say the position does not require a masters, proviing it needs a masters in mech. engg might be even harder. Did you ask your company attorney about this? what do they say?
education and experience requirements are tied to a position, not to the person. So the LC is going to look into whether the position of a systems analyst requires a masters, and if it does what kind (as the minimum requriements). At I-140 they see if YOU match the position for which the LC has been approved. If the LC said systems-analyst needs a masters in computer-science or electrical engineering, then you will have a problem.
You can potentially get two questions in the RFE:
- why does the job need a Masters (EB2 justification for LC)
- why does a masters in mechanical engineering satisfy the requirement of a masters for a system analyst position (whether you meet the requirement, at I-140 stage).
Since you yourself say the position does not require a masters, proviing it needs a masters in mech. engg might be even harder. Did you ask your company attorney about this? what do they say?
desi3933
09-05 05:53 PM
Thanks, nice reply.
Question: I am on EAD and inovked AC21 and working with new employer. I am planning to register a company confused which one to go with LLC or C Corp., by the way I live in California, San Jose. I heard that if you register a LLC in California every year you have to around $800 tax fee, weather you do a business or not, is it true?
If I go with C-Corp, shall I liable to $800 as well, any ideas??
What is the deference between LLC and C-Corp? I know every state has deferent laws but I would appreciate if someone can answer my questions from California state.
Thanks in advance.
The minimum California franchise tax is the amount a California corp must pay the first quarter of each tax year whether it is active, operates at a loss or does not do business. The current minimum tax is $800.
The $800 tax payment is not due during the corporation's FIRST tax year. The first $800 minimum tax is due on the 15th day of the 4th month of the corporation's SECOND tax year.
Please note that LLCs are liable for the minimum franchise tax in all years (no two year exemption for LLCs).
Please check details with California Franchise Tax Board. The web site is http://www.ftb.ca.gov
*** Disclaimer - This is general info and use it at your own risk *****
____________________________________
Proud Indian American and Legal Immigrant
Question: I am on EAD and inovked AC21 and working with new employer. I am planning to register a company confused which one to go with LLC or C Corp., by the way I live in California, San Jose. I heard that if you register a LLC in California every year you have to around $800 tax fee, weather you do a business or not, is it true?
If I go with C-Corp, shall I liable to $800 as well, any ideas??
What is the deference between LLC and C-Corp? I know every state has deferent laws but I would appreciate if someone can answer my questions from California state.
Thanks in advance.
The minimum California franchise tax is the amount a California corp must pay the first quarter of each tax year whether it is active, operates at a loss or does not do business. The current minimum tax is $800.
The $800 tax payment is not due during the corporation's FIRST tax year. The first $800 minimum tax is due on the 15th day of the 4th month of the corporation's SECOND tax year.
Please note that LLCs are liable for the minimum franchise tax in all years (no two year exemption for LLCs).
Please check details with California Franchise Tax Board. The web site is http://www.ftb.ca.gov
*** Disclaimer - This is general info and use it at your own risk *****
____________________________________
Proud Indian American and Legal Immigrant
485Mbe4001
05-14 07:09 PM
Thanks guys for all the hard work and continuing efforts.
When i started jumping up and down, my lawyers gently reminded me that my PD will be current on June 1 and not as of today :p
When i started jumping up and down, my lawyers gently reminded me that my PD will be current on June 1 and not as of today :p
No comments:
Post a Comment