tonyHK12
11-24 10:37 AM
In spite of the mess we are in, these songs and the substitutions does make me wonder whether I need to cry or laugh!
Aha, found the perfect song. Apologies for Angreji lyrics!
When you see it on youtube you will understand - a bit pessimistic, hopeless, wierd, also feels appropriately, sadistic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6Qd9VR1gD8 - older video
Aerosmith - Dream On:
"
Every time I look in the mirror
All these lines on my face getting clearer
The past is gone
It goes by, like dusk to dawn
Isn't that the way
Everybody's got their dues in life to pay
Yeah, I know nobody knows
where it comes and where it goes
I know it's everybody's sin
You got to lose to know how to win
Half my life
is in books' written pages
Lived and learned from fools and
from sages
You know it's true
All the things come back to you
....
Sing with me, sing for the year
Sing for the laughter, sing for the tears
Sing with me, if it's just for today
Maybe tomorrow, the good lord will take you away
....
...
Dream On Dream On Dream On
Dream until your dreams come true
Dream On Dream On Dream On
Dream until your dream comes through
Dream On Dream On Dream On
Dream On Dream On
Dream On Dream On "
Aha, found the perfect song. Apologies for Angreji lyrics!
When you see it on youtube you will understand - a bit pessimistic, hopeless, wierd, also feels appropriately, sadistic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6Qd9VR1gD8 - older video
Aerosmith - Dream On:
"
Every time I look in the mirror
All these lines on my face getting clearer
The past is gone
It goes by, like dusk to dawn
Isn't that the way
Everybody's got their dues in life to pay
Yeah, I know nobody knows
where it comes and where it goes
I know it's everybody's sin
You got to lose to know how to win
Half my life
is in books' written pages
Lived and learned from fools and
from sages
You know it's true
All the things come back to you
....
Sing with me, sing for the year
Sing for the laughter, sing for the tears
Sing with me, if it's just for today
Maybe tomorrow, the good lord will take you away
....
...
Dream On Dream On Dream On
Dream until your dreams come true
Dream On Dream On Dream On
Dream until your dream comes through
Dream On Dream On Dream On
Dream On Dream On
Dream On Dream On "
wallpaper illy graham freemasonry.
ameryki
08-27 10:21 PM
mate i am in the same boat as you. but I personally don't think anything can be done to change that. It is completely based on IO's judgement when approving application.
gc_chahiye
07-11 08:03 PM
What I dont understnad is that if they skipped security clearances on AOS applications to use up numbers..how does it imply taht they would have to eat crow and accept July application...Logic doesnt explain this,
They have alrady made teh blunder of skipping sec clearances...What they can now request is to go back and correct that mistake and ask that any and all applications in July be rejected so that they can do sec clearance on the ones they already used up/approved..
Does that make sense.?
I think the statement from Greg Siskind is that 'if they dont want to answer these questions about security clearance etc, the simplest way out is to accept the July Applications and get everyone off their back (irrespective of whether visa numbers are there or not).
One issue though is, even if they want to kill this controversy by accepting July applications, they need some face-saving way to do this about-turn. They cant say they are scared of an inquiry or a lawsuit. Settling the AILF lawsuit is probably that way out. Gettings AILF of their back, and will also stop senators and representatives from asking them uncomfortable questions...
They have alrady made teh blunder of skipping sec clearances...What they can now request is to go back and correct that mistake and ask that any and all applications in July be rejected so that they can do sec clearance on the ones they already used up/approved..
Does that make sense.?
I think the statement from Greg Siskind is that 'if they dont want to answer these questions about security clearance etc, the simplest way out is to accept the July Applications and get everyone off their back (irrespective of whether visa numbers are there or not).
One issue though is, even if they want to kill this controversy by accepting July applications, they need some face-saving way to do this about-turn. They cant say they are scared of an inquiry or a lawsuit. Settling the AILF lawsuit is probably that way out. Gettings AILF of their back, and will also stop senators and representatives from asking them uncomfortable questions...
2011 had with Billy Graham,
imm_pro
05-20 01:13 PM
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26605
looks like the Agjobs amendment tagged to this bill is drawing lot of attention and negative publicity..
This is why we keep close watch on Congress. In a bipartisan effort accomplished quickly and virtually under the table, Sens. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) -- in Senate Appropriations markup of the War Supplemental bill -- obtained approval of an amendment that would create an amnesty for illegal alien farm workers. The measure, called the Emergency Agriculture Relief Act, was added to the War Supplemental bill in a 17-12 vote last Thursday.
Known as the AgJob amendment, the Feinstein-Craig measure revived instantaneously the controversy that caused conservatives to lash out at the White House and Congress last summer.
The measure would grant temporary legal status to 1.35 million illegal immigrants and their families currently working in the agricultural field. The legislation was passed out of committee at the request of agribusiness interests who have been insisting that they need illegal aliens to harvest crops and run horse shows. The legislation is nothing less than �comprehensive immigration reform� on a smaller scale.
What supporters of the amendment are calling �emergency� and �temporary�, opponents have labeled an �amnesty visa.� Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) said he considered the amendment amnesty and that �all these immigration issues should be addressed through the regular order."
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) opposes the amendment and said he will be working to remove it from the supplemental bill.
�Instead of ensuring that American troops are provided with the tools and resources that they need to protect our homeland, some in the Senate have instead chosen to jeopardize this funding by inserting provisions that are -- at best -- counterproductive to the efforts of our military members,� said Vitter in a press release.
According to Feinstein, the legislation is supported by the American Farm Bureau, the United Farm Workers, and other similar organizations but this is likely because it allows those employers to continue paying excessively low wages.
Feinstein assured the Appropriations Committee that the bill was not an amnesty because it requires the individuals work at least 100 days a year in the agricultural industry for the next five years.
�It is an emergency agricultural worker bill, which will give protected status to those workers who have worked in agriculture within the last 48 months,� she said, also noting that the U.S. would lose $5-9 billion to foreign competition without it.
Those are the same arguments that we heard last summer. In truth, Feinstein-Craig DOES provide amnesty for an unknown number of illegal workers. It provides, as the Bush-McCain-Kennedy bill did, a path to citizenship for some illegal aliens.
The amendment will go through the Senate this week as they consider the Iraq spending bill as a whole. At this writing, it isn�t clear that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will bring the measure to the floor for a vote.
NumbersUSA, an organization fighting illegal immigration, called the amendment �outrageous� and urged constituents to contact their political leaders. They noted that because families can also obtain temporary legal status through the amendment, it could reach almost 3 million people.
�The most important point to stress is that there is no need for an amnesty to provide growers with workers�there already is an H-2A foreign agricultural worker program that provides growers with an unlimited number of temporary workers if the growers agree to pay a decent wage and ensure that they go home at the end of the season,� said NumbersUSA news release.
Some farming organizations, like the Northwest Growers Association, not only support the measure but don�t think it does enough. They claim the AgJobs amendment doesn�t do enough for illegal aliens because it includes an �unrealistic visa cap.�
But the H-2A visa program exists and works without a cap. While Craig and others claim �oranges are rotting� on trees and needs illegal aliens to tend to our agriculture, places like the North Carolina Grower�s Association (NCGA, spotlighted on Michelle Malkin�s blog), oppose the amendment and have fared well with H-2A. NCGA utilizes H-2A to its fullest capacity as other agricultural organizations do not.
Additionally, AgJobs would maximize H-2B visas (lower skill, non-agricultural seasonal workers) and push an influx of more illegal immigrants, which clashes with what the American people want. They demonstrated their disapproval of amnesty proposals last year by a bipartisan grassroots effort to kill the immigration reform bill of 2007.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md) also slipped in an amendment supporting illegal immigrants in the supplemental bill. Mikulski hopes to extend a program for temporary workers to re-enter the country without being subject to the limits on H2B visas. In a Congress Daily article, she said, "If you like Maryland crabs, vote for this amendment.�
"It seems that the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee love our troops�but for entirely different reasons: they provide convenient cover for passing special interest legislation to benefit illegal aliens and powerful business lobbies," wrote Ira Mehlman, Media Director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in an opinion piece yesterday.
Mehlman also reported that Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wa.) added a provision that would include 218,000 visas for skilled foreign workers. Part of the problem is this: Right now, America�s population is 300 million. At the rate we are going with illegal immigrants (sped up by amendments like these), the US Census Bureau estimates the population will be 450 million by 2050. If a Democrat, entitlement-oriented government sinks its teeth in, taxes will be higher than ever and freedom will be in jeopardy.
The Senate will begin debate on the supplemental bill tomorrow and is likely to vote on it before the end of the week. Some Republican senators -- including Alabama�s Jeff Sessions and others -- are working hard to expunge the illegal alien amnesty provisions. The only thing that may save the day is that the Democrats are including many of the antiwar measures that the president has vetoed in previous bills. If the bill passes, it�s likely to be vetoed.
And Congress will be back to ground zero after Memorial Day.
looks like the Agjobs amendment tagged to this bill is drawing lot of attention and negative publicity..
This is why we keep close watch on Congress. In a bipartisan effort accomplished quickly and virtually under the table, Sens. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) -- in Senate Appropriations markup of the War Supplemental bill -- obtained approval of an amendment that would create an amnesty for illegal alien farm workers. The measure, called the Emergency Agriculture Relief Act, was added to the War Supplemental bill in a 17-12 vote last Thursday.
Known as the AgJob amendment, the Feinstein-Craig measure revived instantaneously the controversy that caused conservatives to lash out at the White House and Congress last summer.
The measure would grant temporary legal status to 1.35 million illegal immigrants and their families currently working in the agricultural field. The legislation was passed out of committee at the request of agribusiness interests who have been insisting that they need illegal aliens to harvest crops and run horse shows. The legislation is nothing less than �comprehensive immigration reform� on a smaller scale.
What supporters of the amendment are calling �emergency� and �temporary�, opponents have labeled an �amnesty visa.� Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) said he considered the amendment amnesty and that �all these immigration issues should be addressed through the regular order."
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) opposes the amendment and said he will be working to remove it from the supplemental bill.
�Instead of ensuring that American troops are provided with the tools and resources that they need to protect our homeland, some in the Senate have instead chosen to jeopardize this funding by inserting provisions that are -- at best -- counterproductive to the efforts of our military members,� said Vitter in a press release.
According to Feinstein, the legislation is supported by the American Farm Bureau, the United Farm Workers, and other similar organizations but this is likely because it allows those employers to continue paying excessively low wages.
Feinstein assured the Appropriations Committee that the bill was not an amnesty because it requires the individuals work at least 100 days a year in the agricultural industry for the next five years.
�It is an emergency agricultural worker bill, which will give protected status to those workers who have worked in agriculture within the last 48 months,� she said, also noting that the U.S. would lose $5-9 billion to foreign competition without it.
Those are the same arguments that we heard last summer. In truth, Feinstein-Craig DOES provide amnesty for an unknown number of illegal workers. It provides, as the Bush-McCain-Kennedy bill did, a path to citizenship for some illegal aliens.
The amendment will go through the Senate this week as they consider the Iraq spending bill as a whole. At this writing, it isn�t clear that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will bring the measure to the floor for a vote.
NumbersUSA, an organization fighting illegal immigration, called the amendment �outrageous� and urged constituents to contact their political leaders. They noted that because families can also obtain temporary legal status through the amendment, it could reach almost 3 million people.
�The most important point to stress is that there is no need for an amnesty to provide growers with workers�there already is an H-2A foreign agricultural worker program that provides growers with an unlimited number of temporary workers if the growers agree to pay a decent wage and ensure that they go home at the end of the season,� said NumbersUSA news release.
Some farming organizations, like the Northwest Growers Association, not only support the measure but don�t think it does enough. They claim the AgJobs amendment doesn�t do enough for illegal aliens because it includes an �unrealistic visa cap.�
But the H-2A visa program exists and works without a cap. While Craig and others claim �oranges are rotting� on trees and needs illegal aliens to tend to our agriculture, places like the North Carolina Grower�s Association (NCGA, spotlighted on Michelle Malkin�s blog), oppose the amendment and have fared well with H-2A. NCGA utilizes H-2A to its fullest capacity as other agricultural organizations do not.
Additionally, AgJobs would maximize H-2B visas (lower skill, non-agricultural seasonal workers) and push an influx of more illegal immigrants, which clashes with what the American people want. They demonstrated their disapproval of amnesty proposals last year by a bipartisan grassroots effort to kill the immigration reform bill of 2007.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md) also slipped in an amendment supporting illegal immigrants in the supplemental bill. Mikulski hopes to extend a program for temporary workers to re-enter the country without being subject to the limits on H2B visas. In a Congress Daily article, she said, "If you like Maryland crabs, vote for this amendment.�
"It seems that the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee love our troops�but for entirely different reasons: they provide convenient cover for passing special interest legislation to benefit illegal aliens and powerful business lobbies," wrote Ira Mehlman, Media Director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in an opinion piece yesterday.
Mehlman also reported that Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wa.) added a provision that would include 218,000 visas for skilled foreign workers. Part of the problem is this: Right now, America�s population is 300 million. At the rate we are going with illegal immigrants (sped up by amendments like these), the US Census Bureau estimates the population will be 450 million by 2050. If a Democrat, entitlement-oriented government sinks its teeth in, taxes will be higher than ever and freedom will be in jeopardy.
The Senate will begin debate on the supplemental bill tomorrow and is likely to vote on it before the end of the week. Some Republican senators -- including Alabama�s Jeff Sessions and others -- are working hard to expunge the illegal alien amnesty provisions. The only thing that may save the day is that the Democrats are including many of the antiwar measures that the president has vetoed in previous bills. If the bill passes, it�s likely to be vetoed.
And Congress will be back to ground zero after Memorial Day.
more...
immi_enthu
08-28 09:05 AM
That is correct. You do not get to sign the 140 as it is has to be applied by the employer. You however, have to sign your approved Labor which will be attached to the 140 application.
what would happen if the approved labor is NOT signed and attached to the I 140. Any experiences like this?
what would happen if the approved labor is NOT signed and attached to the I 140. Any experiences like this?
atlfp
04-09 03:39 PM
I guess Berkeleybee was talking about me....I posted a few theories in another thread regarding PACE act.
I certainly understand the IV has done a lot and am very excited about what you have achieved. Not sure how you view it, but I think posting my view in the forum is also a form of support. It may not be as much as you wanted, but nevertheless it by no mean is saying what you did was wrong, it's just some thing I thought about and I thought it might be worth to bring up. But If this bothers you then I have no problem to shut up.
Not sure why IV chose to lock up live update threading to member only though. Growing number of members is definitely good, but I am not sure about forcing people to register to read. People participant when there is a passion in it, forcing they into it more or less drive the passion away.
Just my 2 cents.
All,
Just to put this issue to bed once and for all. IV is committed to bringing its goals into legislation -- we are not wedded to any particular piece of legislation. If Plan A doesn't work, there is Plan B, C and D. Each with its own advantages and disadvantages.
There have been some people who have been saying "Comprehensive reform is dead IV should work on PACE/Poster's favorite option."
(1) It is not certain that CIR is dead. We are not about to toss it aside before the Senate has.
(2) IV is fully prepared for PACE -- we have studied all of PACE's provisons (have the theorists even done this?). Did you happen to notice that one of the co-sponsors of PACE has already offered an amendment for us? We also have support from other co-sponsors.
(3) Our amendments show that we have support no matter which legislation goes forward -- we have to shore up this support and make sure we get more for floor votes.
BTW, I notice that some of our new theorists became members only a few days ago, probably to read the live update threads, and just a few days after that they start opining about what IV should do. ;-) Have they done anything with/for IV: volunteer, contribute, send webfaxes? I doubt it.
Note to new members: please visit our Resources section and familiarize yourself with the material there, at the very least you'll see we have been doing our homework and we are not a one-theory-one-legislation group.
best,
Berkeleybee
I certainly understand the IV has done a lot and am very excited about what you have achieved. Not sure how you view it, but I think posting my view in the forum is also a form of support. It may not be as much as you wanted, but nevertheless it by no mean is saying what you did was wrong, it's just some thing I thought about and I thought it might be worth to bring up. But If this bothers you then I have no problem to shut up.
Not sure why IV chose to lock up live update threading to member only though. Growing number of members is definitely good, but I am not sure about forcing people to register to read. People participant when there is a passion in it, forcing they into it more or less drive the passion away.
Just my 2 cents.
All,
Just to put this issue to bed once and for all. IV is committed to bringing its goals into legislation -- we are not wedded to any particular piece of legislation. If Plan A doesn't work, there is Plan B, C and D. Each with its own advantages and disadvantages.
There have been some people who have been saying "Comprehensive reform is dead IV should work on PACE/Poster's favorite option."
(1) It is not certain that CIR is dead. We are not about to toss it aside before the Senate has.
(2) IV is fully prepared for PACE -- we have studied all of PACE's provisons (have the theorists even done this?). Did you happen to notice that one of the co-sponsors of PACE has already offered an amendment for us? We also have support from other co-sponsors.
(3) Our amendments show that we have support no matter which legislation goes forward -- we have to shore up this support and make sure we get more for floor votes.
BTW, I notice that some of our new theorists became members only a few days ago, probably to read the live update threads, and just a few days after that they start opining about what IV should do. ;-) Have they done anything with/for IV: volunteer, contribute, send webfaxes? I doubt it.
Note to new members: please visit our Resources section and familiarize yourself with the material there, at the very least you'll see we have been doing our homework and we are not a one-theory-one-legislation group.
best,
Berkeleybee
more...
gopi246
03-20 11:12 AM
I entered US through Logan on Dec 12th, 2007 and got i94 till Nov 2010.
When I applied for SSN at Norwood SSN office, they told me that the immigration dept have to cross verify my visa details and confirm them back which is still not done. Without SSN, Payroll is not generated. I have to return back to India in next 1 week. Can someone let me know the contact info of immigration people. Is this common thing to happen or i need to fight it out Any input will be appreciated. Thanks
When I applied for SSN at Norwood SSN office, they told me that the immigration dept have to cross verify my visa details and confirm them back which is still not done. Without SSN, Payroll is not generated. I have to return back to India in next 1 week. Can someone let me know the contact info of immigration people. Is this common thing to happen or i need to fight it out Any input will be appreciated. Thanks
2010 illy graham freemasonry.
heavencard
05-15 04:26 PM
Thank you everyone for your responses.
I am thinking to go for education evaluation through Attorney and based on the evaluation I can decide. But honestly, I am discourage to apply under EB3 due to current prevailing scenario and it is uncertain when finally I will have GC in hand.
I am thinking to go for education evaluation through Attorney and based on the evaluation I can decide. But honestly, I am discourage to apply under EB3 due to current prevailing scenario and it is uncertain when finally I will have GC in hand.
more...
Sakthisagar
04-28 10:05 AM
I agree US having fair consideration for illegals because of political reasons(VOTES to be specific)
but the author comparing India & Mexico having strict rules.. common...
India have borders open for Bangladesh and whoever crosses the border, with out any shame
the present ruling party kaangress is giving Ration Card and Voters Id.
Mexico we all know how tuff the law is and what they do.
So Please do not compare apples with oranges.. whoever is the author.
Now Texas, Utah, the list goes on, Hope at least because of this CIR will come to the floor soon!
here there is no legals and illegals now, no one should be allowed to do divide and rule policy.
now Legal and Illegals are almost the same on immigration thing at least.
Hispanics made us hostage so go with the flow.
but the author comparing India & Mexico having strict rules.. common...
India have borders open for Bangladesh and whoever crosses the border, with out any shame
the present ruling party kaangress is giving Ration Card and Voters Id.
Mexico we all know how tuff the law is and what they do.
So Please do not compare apples with oranges.. whoever is the author.
Now Texas, Utah, the list goes on, Hope at least because of this CIR will come to the floor soon!
here there is no legals and illegals now, no one should be allowed to do divide and rule policy.
now Legal and Illegals are almost the same on immigration thing at least.
Hispanics made us hostage so go with the flow.
hair illy graham freemasonry.
kk_kk
04-23 01:27 PM
I have chnaged my address twice in last 2 months with USCIS. One change is from zip code xxxxx to yyyyy and other with in the same zip code. Both the time, there was an soft LUD on my I-485. knock on wood, no RFE's as of yet.
more...
ars01
06-27 10:48 AM
My lawyer asked me to write my A# from my OPT card that I used in 1999-2000. According to him A# is assigend once for an individual and if you were assigned before you can continue to use that in future. Though I never used that in the past 7-8 years.
My wife got an OPT card last month and we used A# from that card for her dependent I-485 application
My wife got an OPT card last month and we used A# from that card for her dependent I-485 application
hot Billy+graham+freemason
new_horizon
08-27 09:30 AM
Thanks guys for response...
so basically in short....
I can aply for visitors visa an visit cananda while my PR is in proceess right..??
You can visit Canada when your PR is pending, provided you have a valid visitor visa. They'll issue you a visitor visa even though your PR App is pending.
However once your PR app. is approved, you can only apply for a immigrant visa, and get into Canada as a Landed immigrant. From posts from another thread what I understand is you can return to US soon after you land in Canada as a Landed immigrant. Hope this clarifies.
so basically in short....
I can aply for visitors visa an visit cananda while my PR is in proceess right..??
You can visit Canada when your PR is pending, provided you have a valid visitor visa. They'll issue you a visitor visa even though your PR App is pending.
However once your PR app. is approved, you can only apply for a immigrant visa, and get into Canada as a Landed immigrant. From posts from another thread what I understand is you can return to US soon after you land in Canada as a Landed immigrant. Hope this clarifies.
more...
house Billy Graham
gccube
04-08 10:07 AM
Please see my signature for other details.
tattoo Religion Billy Graham
kaisersose
12-17 10:16 AM
This is hardly the way to handle a 485 rejection. Your statements not supportd by details are very dubious. If what you are saying is indeed true, go talk to your lawyer. Asking incomplete, questions on a discussion forum is hardly the way to go.
USCIS will not send a bald letter with a one line statement that your 485 was denied. They are required to provide a detailed justification in defense of their decision. And this again makes your claim suspect.
USCIS will not send a bald letter with a one line statement that your 485 was denied. They are required to provide a detailed justification in defense of their decision. And this again makes your claim suspect.
more...
pictures to Billy Graham#39;s presence
hazishak
09-04 10:22 AM
I did read somewhere that it takes 30 days for USCIS to locate one single file. All applications might not be in the database as only 30% (approx) of all the pending applications are databased.
How difficult is it to find info about the old cases. It is a simple search query on the database. (One single query)
How difficult is it to find info about the old cases. It is a simple search query on the database. (One single query)
dresses You may notice that Billy has
jesicakalra
01-30 06:26 AM
China is a very good place for Indian ........
more...
makeup Anne Graham Lotz, Billy
anilsal
03-21 12:37 AM
Additionally, can your attorneys makes copies of RFE response sent and attach it to the MTR maybe? I do not if that is possible or allowed or will make any difference.
I just learned that from you that there is a 33 day deadline on answering RFEs. What if the mail got lost in transit? How will the applicant/attorneys really know (unless of course you have done the online case status registration).
I just learned that from you that there is a 33 day deadline on answering RFEs. What if the mail got lost in transit? How will the applicant/attorneys really know (unless of course you have done the online case status registration).
girlfriend The meteoric rise to prominence, that Billy Graham experience
go_guy123
01-26 01:38 PM
This is an important step zero. I am sure Reid will push this through in the Senate.
But in this congress it's all about what the House does.. Need to see the House version of this bill..
CIR (aka mass amnesty) was not doable in the past, and is not now and wont be in future. They could not do it even when democratic party was in power in congress (high tide of democratic party). It is impossible now with GOP in control.
It si pure lip seervice by Sen Reid
But in this congress it's all about what the House does.. Need to see the House version of this bill..
CIR (aka mass amnesty) was not doable in the past, and is not now and wont be in future. They could not do it even when democratic party was in power in congress (high tide of democratic party). It is impossible now with GOP in control.
It si pure lip seervice by Sen Reid
hairstyles BEWARE OF THE NEW AGE MASONIC
pappu
10-30 01:37 PM
See this link, give your comments ( I suggest to be brief & to the point).
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/10/immigration_is_.html
pls. try to also post IV link in your reply on usatoday.com
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/10/immigration_is_.html
pls. try to also post IV link in your reply on usatoday.com
zofa30
09-13 02:16 PM
Hi,
I am on Eb-2+PERM and get my PERM and wait for I-140 to be approved (by premium processing). I have 2 questions:
1-If I my I-140 is approved but even though the PD (or visa number) is not available. If I left to a new employer can I port my PD when they then become available or if my employer revoke my I-140 I will also lose the chance or porting the PD to my new GC application (PERM + I-140) with the new employer?
2- How much time I could save by porting my PD? does it depend on country of origin?
Thanks.
I am on Eb-2+PERM and get my PERM and wait for I-140 to be approved (by premium processing). I have 2 questions:
1-If I my I-140 is approved but even though the PD (or visa number) is not available. If I left to a new employer can I port my PD when they then become available or if my employer revoke my I-140 I will also lose the chance or porting the PD to my new GC application (PERM + I-140) with the new employer?
2- How much time I could save by porting my PD? does it depend on country of origin?
Thanks.
enggr
10-12 12:37 AM
Hi Friends/Gurus,
My attorney received an RFE on H1B extension last week.
The details of my case are
2004-Oct-01 -- My H1B started
2004-Nov-20 -- I entered the country on H1B for the first time
2008-Dec-25 -- Date till my current work authorization (I-797) is valid
2010-Sep-30 -- Date I complete 6 years under H1B. Since I entered only on 2004-Nov-20 my attorney said my 6 years is up to 2010 Nov 20th
2008-August-10th -- My attorney applied for my H1B extension under normal processing. He requested until 2011-Dec-25th (3 years from current I-797) expiration on the petition instead of 2010-Nov-20th
2008-Oct-8th -- Attorney received the RFE
When the petition for H1B extension was prepared on 2008 July, I asked the employer why the period of intended employment is put as 2011-Dec-25th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. The employer replied that its a usual practice to request 3 years of H1B extension and USCIS will only give the maximum possible
What's the RFE
Now we got the RFE and it says we have requested for an extension beyond 6 years and for getting that we should have a labor certification pending more than 365 days or an approved I-140.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a labor cert with priority date of 2006 August which was approved but the I-140 was denied on EB2 category for not meeting 5 years of progressive experience. Earlier this year in 2008 April we have filed another EB3 I-140 for the same 2006 Aug Labor
On the H1B extension petition attorney had requested until 2011-Nov 20th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. I saw the H1B extension application and it says Dates of Intended employment as 12/25/2008 till 12/25/2011
Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period only until 11/20/2010?
The attorney contacted me and said they are going to send a copy of my I-94 as of Nov 20th 2004 and a copy of my immigration port of entry stamp on my passport stamped on nov 20th 2004 and request to give the extension. The attorney mentioned that the I-94 and port of entry seal will help USCIS to determine the maximum period of H1B that can be granted
My worry
My worry is INS rejecting the petition saying these kinds of changes in dates (2010 nov instead of 2011 dec) cannot be done in the midde of the process and this will be rejected and we need to file again a new petition. I know that we can work until 240 days if we file for an extension on time. I want to get this extension obtained before 2008 dec 25th so that I don't have to go through a chance of denial after 2008 dec 25th which can put my status into illegal sometimes. I am thinking of premium processign also if the results of the RFE doesn't come by next month (November).
My questions
1) Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period of employment only until 11/20/2010 on the original petition?
2) Please advice me on how we should resopnd to the RFE and what date we should request for.
3) Should we ask USCIS to give extension until 2010 sep 30th if they don't agree for 2010 nov 20th? Does this has to be clearly mentioned in the RFE response letter?
Your help very much appreciated. Please reply to this as my legal stay is based on this.
My attorney received an RFE on H1B extension last week.
The details of my case are
2004-Oct-01 -- My H1B started
2004-Nov-20 -- I entered the country on H1B for the first time
2008-Dec-25 -- Date till my current work authorization (I-797) is valid
2010-Sep-30 -- Date I complete 6 years under H1B. Since I entered only on 2004-Nov-20 my attorney said my 6 years is up to 2010 Nov 20th
2008-August-10th -- My attorney applied for my H1B extension under normal processing. He requested until 2011-Dec-25th (3 years from current I-797) expiration on the petition instead of 2010-Nov-20th
2008-Oct-8th -- Attorney received the RFE
When the petition for H1B extension was prepared on 2008 July, I asked the employer why the period of intended employment is put as 2011-Dec-25th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. The employer replied that its a usual practice to request 3 years of H1B extension and USCIS will only give the maximum possible
What's the RFE
Now we got the RFE and it says we have requested for an extension beyond 6 years and for getting that we should have a labor certification pending more than 365 days or an approved I-140.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a labor cert with priority date of 2006 August which was approved but the I-140 was denied on EB2 category for not meeting 5 years of progressive experience. Earlier this year in 2008 April we have filed another EB3 I-140 for the same 2006 Aug Labor
On the H1B extension petition attorney had requested until 2011-Nov 20th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. I saw the H1B extension application and it says Dates of Intended employment as 12/25/2008 till 12/25/2011
Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period only until 11/20/2010?
The attorney contacted me and said they are going to send a copy of my I-94 as of Nov 20th 2004 and a copy of my immigration port of entry stamp on my passport stamped on nov 20th 2004 and request to give the extension. The attorney mentioned that the I-94 and port of entry seal will help USCIS to determine the maximum period of H1B that can be granted
My worry
My worry is INS rejecting the petition saying these kinds of changes in dates (2010 nov instead of 2011 dec) cannot be done in the midde of the process and this will be rejected and we need to file again a new petition. I know that we can work until 240 days if we file for an extension on time. I want to get this extension obtained before 2008 dec 25th so that I don't have to go through a chance of denial after 2008 dec 25th which can put my status into illegal sometimes. I am thinking of premium processign also if the results of the RFE doesn't come by next month (November).
My questions
1) Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period of employment only until 11/20/2010 on the original petition?
2) Please advice me on how we should resopnd to the RFE and what date we should request for.
3) Should we ask USCIS to give extension until 2010 sep 30th if they don't agree for 2010 nov 20th? Does this has to be clearly mentioned in the RFE response letter?
Your help very much appreciated. Please reply to this as my legal stay is based on this.
No comments:
Post a Comment