satyasaich
09-05 11:48 AM
For sure, things will be different after Nov Elections. However when it comes to immigration reforms or SKIL kind of bills, i think (i hate to say this) ambiguity still persists, no matter who controls the house
Well, there is a slightly increased chance in case of Dems control the houses
I would like to discuss two issues
1) Is there a reasonable chance for Democrats to take control of the House after Nov elections.
2) What would that mean for skilled legal Immigrant community (aka will my GC come faster :))
It looks like Americans are fed up with the war in Iraq and other issues. Especially here in TX there is one seat definitely going to Democrats ( Tom Delay's seat). Would a Democrat majority make passing SKIL a slam dunk ?
Well, there is a slightly increased chance in case of Dems control the houses
I would like to discuss two issues
1) Is there a reasonable chance for Democrats to take control of the House after Nov elections.
2) What would that mean for skilled legal Immigrant community (aka will my GC come faster :))
It looks like Americans are fed up with the war in Iraq and other issues. Especially here in TX there is one seat definitely going to Democrats ( Tom Delay's seat). Would a Democrat majority make passing SKIL a slam dunk ?
wallpaper cute curly hairstyle for
vdlrao
06-01 09:26 PM
labor certificate for gc application and LCA for H1 are two different things. labor certificate for gc application is for a future job and employer is certifying that they will pay you per gc labor certificate once you get your gc and has nothing to do with h1 LCA.
really good information.
really good information.
nvishy
05-12 09:36 AM
You have no other option except to wait in Toronto. If the consulate decides to issue visa, then there is no need to go to stamping in India as they will issue the visa themselves.
2011 hairstyle beauty girl asian
gg_ny
08-21 09:20 AM
Is there a chance to attach SKIL provisions towards higher degree GC retrogressed applicants to this appropriation efforts?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
more...
HuaRhoda
02-03 02:14 AM
The US company who offers you the job, are the ones that apply for a H visa not you. They have to prove that you are qualified for the job they are offering you and that you are not taking a job away from an American, that your qualifications are equal or more than American qualifications, they have to pay you within a set pay scale for that job in that location.
rajivkane
05-21 09:52 AM
HI!
I have two I-140(both approved) & want to port earlier priority date of 10/21/2003(EB-3 Classification) to my other approved I-140(EB2 Class-priority date 11/14/2005). My EB-3 I-140 was not approved at the time of filling I-485 in July'2007. Both my lawyer & me have written couple of letters to USCIS to do this but still nothing is done. We received a reply to one of my letter asking us to file I-824 "requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date". Both I-140 are from the same employer & I am still with them. My questions are 1) do I need to file I-824 or this will be eventually done by USCIS by reminder letters? (2) Will filling I-824 will harm my case in anyway? (3) What "reason for request" to choose on I-824 when filling- as none of the existing ones fit my case( can I say "see attached" & mention ""requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date" on anither sheet of paper? (if any one has this experience please guide me) (4) how long does it take to get this done whether we file I-824 or otherwise?(5)Any good lawyer for this?
Some more :
Murhy.com has following:
"However, we at the Murthy Law Firm see cases in which either the I-140 petition with the earlier priority date was not approved until after the I-485 filing or the option was overlooked. In those situations, NSC suggests that the Application for Action on Approved Petition (Form I-824) can be used in order to obtain proof of the change of the priority date. Form I-824 is not required in order to make the request for retention or change of priority date, but it gives a mechanism to obtain a decision and proof that the request was granted"
Some of the questions based on above:
(1) Do I require to file I-824 based on this since my EB-3 I-140 was approveD after I filed my I-485 based on EB-2.
(2) If yes, can I file I-842 or my employer need to file since this is "application for action" on I-140 petititon?
(3)Why only NSC requires this? Is this law or someone's whim?
(4) I am already waiting for nearly six month's now- based on porting I am current past six months & we already have sent two letters from my lawyer & two from my side for this.
Please guide.
Regards,
Raj
I have two I-140(both approved) & want to port earlier priority date of 10/21/2003(EB-3 Classification) to my other approved I-140(EB2 Class-priority date 11/14/2005). My EB-3 I-140 was not approved at the time of filling I-485 in July'2007. Both my lawyer & me have written couple of letters to USCIS to do this but still nothing is done. We received a reply to one of my letter asking us to file I-824 "requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date". Both I-140 are from the same employer & I am still with them. My questions are 1) do I need to file I-824 or this will be eventually done by USCIS by reminder letters? (2) Will filling I-824 will harm my case in anyway? (3) What "reason for request" to choose on I-824 when filling- as none of the existing ones fit my case( can I say "see attached" & mention ""requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date" on anither sheet of paper? (if any one has this experience please guide me) (4) how long does it take to get this done whether we file I-824 or otherwise?(5)Any good lawyer for this?
Some more :
Murhy.com has following:
"However, we at the Murthy Law Firm see cases in which either the I-140 petition with the earlier priority date was not approved until after the I-485 filing or the option was overlooked. In those situations, NSC suggests that the Application for Action on Approved Petition (Form I-824) can be used in order to obtain proof of the change of the priority date. Form I-824 is not required in order to make the request for retention or change of priority date, but it gives a mechanism to obtain a decision and proof that the request was granted"
Some of the questions based on above:
(1) Do I require to file I-824 based on this since my EB-3 I-140 was approveD after I filed my I-485 based on EB-2.
(2) If yes, can I file I-842 or my employer need to file since this is "application for action" on I-140 petititon?
(3)Why only NSC requires this? Is this law or someone's whim?
(4) I am already waiting for nearly six month's now- based on porting I am current past six months & we already have sent two letters from my lawyer & two from my side for this.
Please guide.
Regards,
Raj
more...
raj2007
02-20 08:43 PM
Thank you for advice. i did not realize the issue was so complex. I did call uscis after i got married before i sent in my OAS papers and asked them how can i maintain legal status after my j-1 expires. they said that since i came legally, haven't broken any rules and got married before status expiration - i maintain "somewhat legal status"(i do not have j-1 2 year mandatory homecoutry stay either). My wife is US citizen.
So i thought even thought period from 10/01 to 11/26 (receipt for receiving both i-485 and i-130) can be considered out of status - after that i can be considered a resident alien which would mean that it is still a legal status.
Your status is fine once you files I-485, but travelling can be risky.
So i thought even thought period from 10/01 to 11/26 (receipt for receiving both i-485 and i-130) can be considered out of status - after that i can be considered a resident alien which would mean that it is still a legal status.
Your status is fine once you files I-485, but travelling can be risky.
2010 Hot Asian Guys Hairstyle -Kim
akhilmahajan
02-10 04:45 PM
First of all Congrats!!!!!!!1
I am just curious, if you were on H-1B or have used EAD. If you had used EAD, did you work during these 3 months.
Infact, I got good news today. My MTR approved after 3 months. My 485 was denied due to withdrawal of I140 by previous employer (AC21 case).
So I had applied MTR and approved today. Looks like USCIS understood the error and approving all MTR (I didn't hear a single MTR rejection on AC21 case )
I am just curious, if you were on H-1B or have used EAD. If you had used EAD, did you work during these 3 months.
Infact, I got good news today. My MTR approved after 3 months. My 485 was denied due to withdrawal of I140 by previous employer (AC21 case).
So I had applied MTR and approved today. Looks like USCIS understood the error and approving all MTR (I didn't hear a single MTR rejection on AC21 case )
more...
gc_kaavaali
12-24 01:23 PM
Congratulations to everyone!!!...Nothing is impossible if we are united..
hair hot hairstyles for men with
kamal
08-04 03:47 PM
Need not..call him up or go to his office(i recommend this) because we sound different over the phone..try to talk him/her out on this matter..he violated some labor rules, it doesn't mean he/she cannot come after u on this matter..court and labor department are two separate issues..any evidence against him/her can only be used by the discretion of judge..there are several loop holes in this contract issues..by experience i have only got to know a few of them..don't be scared..coz that doesn't help u..finally sorry to tell that i am not able to help you in giving a straight answer..but please do contact a legal attorney in this matter..just consult him/her and get their first hand opinion..also talk to ur employer face to face(if possible) and tell him/her u made few mistakes and i have done one mistake..tell them to get it over with..if u run away from him, he/she thinks ur scared and will try to scare u more..lastly please do not lose ur control by threating / abusing with emails or voice mails or any of that kind..coz that can be used against u inspite of his/her mistake..
Good luck..keep us posted..btw when ur working in calif..which state tax ur paying..was it calif or texas??
Thanks for your response.
Earlier when I was working for my employer it was texas and now as my h1 transfered, the taxes are being paid in california.
By the way what are free lawyer conference calls?
Good luck..keep us posted..btw when ur working in calif..which state tax ur paying..was it calif or texas??
Thanks for your response.
Earlier when I was working for my employer it was texas and now as my h1 transfered, the taxes are being paid in california.
By the way what are free lawyer conference calls?
more...
Green_Print
07-25 02:59 PM
Yes, I had the same question and this is what my lawyer had told me
Thanks for the reply.
So, does that mean the title can totally change if the job responsibilities are 50% same ?
Thanks for the reply.
So, does that mean the title can totally change if the job responsibilities are 50% same ?
hot Asian Hairstyles Latest Trends
saketkapur
09-04 03:03 PM
They have to advance the dates down the line to get more fees in order to keep the dumdums employed at the USCIS.........
That does not mean it translates into GCs.....its just more people get EADs and APs and continued revenue for USCIS.
I also won't be surprized if the fees go up in the next round.
Also until the CIR is passed there is no way they will eliminate the backlog as that will mean giving up their "cash cows"===a.k.a "us".......
Here is what I beleive will happen until amnesty is enacted(whether we like it or not our fate is tied to the illegals):
1. Dates will be moved forward and backward randomly to get more fees from new and old suckers like us(everytime the dates move fwd they raise our hopes and we hang on longer).....they don't want us to leave...they just want us to keep paying for their jobs...so as Obama says......"keep the HOPE train alive" even if its not moving an inch.
2. Increase the fees.....
3. Increase the rate of denials: more denials mean more MTRs mean more revenue......
Its a business and you will do whatever to survive.........nothing personal........
That does not mean it translates into GCs.....its just more people get EADs and APs and continued revenue for USCIS.
I also won't be surprized if the fees go up in the next round.
Also until the CIR is passed there is no way they will eliminate the backlog as that will mean giving up their "cash cows"===a.k.a "us".......
Here is what I beleive will happen until amnesty is enacted(whether we like it or not our fate is tied to the illegals):
1. Dates will be moved forward and backward randomly to get more fees from new and old suckers like us(everytime the dates move fwd they raise our hopes and we hang on longer).....they don't want us to leave...they just want us to keep paying for their jobs...so as Obama says......"keep the HOPE train alive" even if its not moving an inch.
2. Increase the fees.....
3. Increase the rate of denials: more denials mean more MTRs mean more revenue......
Its a business and you will do whatever to survive.........nothing personal........
more...
house Image of Asian Hairstyles For
continuedProgress
07-31 11:27 AM
I'm taking chances as well..... switching to EAD on day 10, if not earlier.
If probable causes of AOS denial aren't discussed elsewhere, maybe some one knowledgeable can throw some light on the subject.
If probable causes of AOS denial aren't discussed elsewhere, maybe some one knowledgeable can throw some light on the subject.
tattoo more Asian hairstyles
greencardfever5
08-24 01:18 AM
poorslumdog,
I do appologize. I have made some donations today, will be making in the future.
i will be more active in the posts and compaigns.
will you please encourage others to respond to my questions?
Thanks for giving me a wake -up call.
I do appologize. I have made some donations today, will be making in the future.
i will be more active in the posts and compaigns.
will you please encourage others to respond to my questions?
Thanks for giving me a wake -up call.
more...
pictures Hot Asian Guys Hairstyle -Kim
vxb2004
11-25 07:59 PM
vxb2004,
Was there any LUD on ur 485 after u sent AC21 Documents in Apr?.
KKtexas,
I had some soft LUD's in June...but the AC21 documents were sent in June!!
Was there any LUD on ur 485 after u sent AC21 Documents in Apr?.
KKtexas,
I had some soft LUD's in June...but the AC21 documents were sent in June!!
dresses Fashion Asian haircut – cool
sgorla
06-05 06:36 PM
I remember reading in the I-765 instructions that EAD card application should be sent to the service center where I-485 application is pending. So, in your case it could be TSC. If you file your EAD online, the system automatically generates the service center address where your supporting documents need to be sent.
Can someone please respond to my question. Thanks.
Can someone please respond to my question. Thanks.
more...
makeup hot asian men hairstyle.
admin
03-28 06:03 PM
I agree that you guys should push for an ammendment that one should be able to file 485 and join the queue and get the derivative benefits once 140 is approved. If we get that alone it is better than nothing.
However let me put it to you guys that without the green card in hand, living in limbo land albeit with some mobility is no fun either. Isn't that sort of what the illegals have now at their own labour level. We will be 2nd class citizens to be discarded at a fire brand politician's whim and fancy.If that wait is many years it will not be good. Further those applying later and later will eventually end up with inordinate waits leaving them the choice of waiting for decades like in some family based categories.
I am only saying this since it was stated that this should be the number one priority. The absolute number one priority for all of us should be to quicken the time to a GREEN CARD.
posmd,
If we're able to make every category current, then this amendment for filing I-485 will be moot. But then again our goals will have to tempered with ground reality. While we're fighting very hard against the hard country limit, there is no guarantee that it will be revoked. In the house-senate conference again, we cannot be sure that all of the exemptions like the ones for Dependents, STEM will not be stripped. So there is a very high chance that priority dates are not going to become current. So with that in mind, we need to make sure that atleast our life during the time that we're waiting for GC is much easier.
However let me put it to you guys that without the green card in hand, living in limbo land albeit with some mobility is no fun either. Isn't that sort of what the illegals have now at their own labour level. We will be 2nd class citizens to be discarded at a fire brand politician's whim and fancy.If that wait is many years it will not be good. Further those applying later and later will eventually end up with inordinate waits leaving them the choice of waiting for decades like in some family based categories.
I am only saying this since it was stated that this should be the number one priority. The absolute number one priority for all of us should be to quicken the time to a GREEN CARD.
posmd,
If we're able to make every category current, then this amendment for filing I-485 will be moot. But then again our goals will have to tempered with ground reality. While we're fighting very hard against the hard country limit, there is no guarantee that it will be revoked. In the house-senate conference again, we cannot be sure that all of the exemptions like the ones for Dependents, STEM will not be stripped. So there is a very high chance that priority dates are not going to become current. So with that in mind, we need to make sure that atleast our life during the time that we're waiting for GC is much easier.
girlfriend Asian Hairstyles For Girls
pbuckeye
06-25 02:45 PM
If you can get the email from the client mentioning that they can't give a letter, then I feel that could be enough reason for MTR (but check with an attorney). Have you explored about filing again in premium with new or more documents (see below)?
Could you confirm if you already submitted:
1. MSA/SOW/PO (all or any of these). Does the SOW/PO have your name on it?
2. Contact info of your supervisor at client site. I think this is very important.
Was the denial solely based on the client letter?
Could you confirm if you already submitted:
1. MSA/SOW/PO (all or any of these). Does the SOW/PO have your name on it?
2. Contact info of your supervisor at client site. I think this is very important.
Was the denial solely based on the client letter?
hairstyles 2009 hot Asian hairstyle for
Ann Ruben
06-22 12:10 PM
There are really two questions here. First, are you eligible for unemployment compensation? And second, will applying for unemployment compensation adversely impact your application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident?
The answer to the first question is controlled by the law of the particular state in which you worked and/or reside. In theory, to be eligible one must have worked long enough that an adequate amount of UC insurance was paid into the UC system, AND one must be willing and ABLE to accept new employment. The law varies from state to state with respect to whether someone in your situation qualifies as "ABLE" to accept new employment.
As to the second question, (assuming your I-140 has been approved and your I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) under the INA, when your PD is reached and your I-485 is adjudicated, you are required to have the intention to take up an offer of permanent full time employment in the same or similar occupation for which your LC was granted. This is a prospective requirement, and your employment status prior to the actual grant of AOS is relevant only to the extent that it supports or undercuts your ability to prove that you have an appropriate offer of full time employment which you intend to take up. There is no requirement that you be employed while you are waiting for your priority date to become current and your I-485 to be adjudicated. However, being unemployed or employed in an entirely unrelated occupation could trigger USCIS to perform a more searching inquiry into the bona fides of the prospective AC21 qualifying job offer and your intention to accept it.
To the best of my knowledge, USCIS is not notified when an AOS applicant applies for UC. Similarly, I am not aware of any cases where an UC claim triggered an RFE. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to act on the assumption that USCIS is aware of UC claims and be well prepared to prove one's intention to take up a bona fide offer of AC 21 qualifying employment once your PD is reached.
The answer to the first question is controlled by the law of the particular state in which you worked and/or reside. In theory, to be eligible one must have worked long enough that an adequate amount of UC insurance was paid into the UC system, AND one must be willing and ABLE to accept new employment. The law varies from state to state with respect to whether someone in your situation qualifies as "ABLE" to accept new employment.
As to the second question, (assuming your I-140 has been approved and your I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) under the INA, when your PD is reached and your I-485 is adjudicated, you are required to have the intention to take up an offer of permanent full time employment in the same or similar occupation for which your LC was granted. This is a prospective requirement, and your employment status prior to the actual grant of AOS is relevant only to the extent that it supports or undercuts your ability to prove that you have an appropriate offer of full time employment which you intend to take up. There is no requirement that you be employed while you are waiting for your priority date to become current and your I-485 to be adjudicated. However, being unemployed or employed in an entirely unrelated occupation could trigger USCIS to perform a more searching inquiry into the bona fides of the prospective AC21 qualifying job offer and your intention to accept it.
To the best of my knowledge, USCIS is not notified when an AOS applicant applies for UC. Similarly, I am not aware of any cases where an UC claim triggered an RFE. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to act on the assumption that USCIS is aware of UC claims and be well prepared to prove one's intention to take up a bona fide offer of AC 21 qualifying employment once your PD is reached.
Arjun
03-15 11:32 AM
I agree, I think you can recieve incentives, but you cannot work (as an employee) for a corporation other than the H1B sponsor. In any case, as long as you report all of your income you are fine. I do'nt think IRS checks your status to validate your income.
H1-B folks are permitted to have sources of passive income from entities other than their H1 sponsor. This includes bank interests, stock dividends, profits from stock transactions etc. Most of these incomes are taxable and reported to the IRS on 1099-INT or 1099-DIV forms. When you open a bank account and get a bonus of, say $200, it is considered as interest earned.
The vital point to remember, I guess, is that H1s are NOT allowed to generate an income from any source (other that H1 sponsor) that needs any tangible work to be done- investments do not count as tangible work.
H1-B folks are permitted to have sources of passive income from entities other than their H1 sponsor. This includes bank interests, stock dividends, profits from stock transactions etc. Most of these incomes are taxable and reported to the IRS on 1099-INT or 1099-DIV forms. When you open a bank account and get a bonus of, say $200, it is considered as interest earned.
The vital point to remember, I guess, is that H1s are NOT allowed to generate an income from any source (other that H1 sponsor) that needs any tangible work to be done- investments do not count as tangible work.
bmoni
03-30 10:53 PM
Congratulations
No comments:
Post a Comment