gc_aspirant_prasad
12-07 08:42 PM
Most Project managers who get their GC in EB1 category are here on L1 A visa.
wallpaper Nina Dobrev
samshah
07-14 09:34 PM
We are in Houston and are interested to join.
Berkeleybee
09-19 09:03 PM
I hope you all took note of the fact that the article dates from May 6, 2006. Very old news. Discussed in the news article thread. IV also wrote a response to NYT.
See
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=280&page=28
See
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=280&page=28
2011 Nina Dobrev - The Vampire
jsb
01-28 09:24 AM
Sorry for the stupid question.
Is it necessary to inform CIS about job change using AC21?
Few of my friends havent informed.
Please read posts above. There is no need to send anything to USCIS unless asked.
Is it necessary to inform CIS about job change using AC21?
Few of my friends havent informed.
Please read posts above. There is no need to send anything to USCIS unless asked.
more...
zCool
04-03 03:35 PM
See below for answers:
Hi there,
this is going to be a bit complicated but I'd appreciate any thoughts (or even just the advice to go get a/which lawyer for this one)....
Anyway, I am on an H1B right now but am going to switch jobs. My understanding is that once the new petition is filed I can start working for the second employer. I also would like to travel home during this time... So, here are my questions:
- Can you work for 2 employers at the same time while making the switch?
-- Simple words. NO. If you want to be on the payroll of 2 full-time employers at the same time, unless otherwise it is mentioned so in LCA it's illegal.
That does not stop you from holding approved H1b Petitions from 2 (or for that matter more than 2) employers at the same time. But you can only work for 1 employer.
- How long does it take to file a petition (can i/my new employer do that myself)? If no, any advice on which lawyer to pick??? Anybody heard of Visa PRO?
-- It should take less than 3 days. If an attorney has previously worked with your employer and has their records on the file etc. then maybe less. A lot of h1b and LCA application documentation involves writing big statements and letters related to employer's business, their need for your speciality skills etc. First time applications for any new employer-attorney pair will take couple of days to prepare these docs.
Good part is you can apply and get receipt in couple of weeks (Earlier if you apply in Premium) and then you are allowed to work for new employer.
- Is traveling to my home country OK while filing the petition or is it better to wait until I come back?
-- It it better to wait. Coz any travel outside can get you stranded if something goes wrong. but if you MUST travel then postpone change of employer till you come back. Meaning you can apply for h1 from new employer but do not join them, Continue working for your current employer. Go visit india, come back , join your current employer and then after 1 paycheck at least give notice and work for new employer. Hopefulyl by then your transfer would have come thro' there by reducing your risk of joining them before h1 approval and then RFE or denial creating issues for you.
Thanks a lot!
BTW, as queries go.. this one wasn't complicated :) Relax!
Hi there,
this is going to be a bit complicated but I'd appreciate any thoughts (or even just the advice to go get a/which lawyer for this one)....
Anyway, I am on an H1B right now but am going to switch jobs. My understanding is that once the new petition is filed I can start working for the second employer. I also would like to travel home during this time... So, here are my questions:
- Can you work for 2 employers at the same time while making the switch?
-- Simple words. NO. If you want to be on the payroll of 2 full-time employers at the same time, unless otherwise it is mentioned so in LCA it's illegal.
That does not stop you from holding approved H1b Petitions from 2 (or for that matter more than 2) employers at the same time. But you can only work for 1 employer.
- How long does it take to file a petition (can i/my new employer do that myself)? If no, any advice on which lawyer to pick??? Anybody heard of Visa PRO?
-- It should take less than 3 days. If an attorney has previously worked with your employer and has their records on the file etc. then maybe less. A lot of h1b and LCA application documentation involves writing big statements and letters related to employer's business, their need for your speciality skills etc. First time applications for any new employer-attorney pair will take couple of days to prepare these docs.
Good part is you can apply and get receipt in couple of weeks (Earlier if you apply in Premium) and then you are allowed to work for new employer.
- Is traveling to my home country OK while filing the petition or is it better to wait until I come back?
-- It it better to wait. Coz any travel outside can get you stranded if something goes wrong. but if you MUST travel then postpone change of employer till you come back. Meaning you can apply for h1 from new employer but do not join them, Continue working for your current employer. Go visit india, come back , join your current employer and then after 1 paycheck at least give notice and work for new employer. Hopefulyl by then your transfer would have come thro' there by reducing your risk of joining them before h1 approval and then RFE or denial creating issues for you.
Thanks a lot!
BTW, as queries go.. this one wasn't complicated :) Relax!
Maverick5
08-26 03:57 PM
I am also in the same boat. I have my Masters in Mechanical Engineering. I had filed for H1B with companies A & B as Mechanical Engineer and have worked with them for 1.5 years each.
Recently I had switched to desi company (C) and had to file my H1B as Software Engineer. I got my H1B without issues. I am crossing my fingers and planning to apply for Labor Certification as Software Engineer in EB2. (MS -Mech Engg + 1 year experience).
Other members pls share your experience if your case is simillar. I know lot of people who did their masters in other fields and changed to Software when they were in OPT. But do not know some one who has worked in H1b as Mechanical engineer and then got another H1 as software engineer. Has anyone with my simillar background, gone past the I140 stage?
Thanks.
Recently I had switched to desi company (C) and had to file my H1B as Software Engineer. I got my H1B without issues. I am crossing my fingers and planning to apply for Labor Certification as Software Engineer in EB2. (MS -Mech Engg + 1 year experience).
Other members pls share your experience if your case is simillar. I know lot of people who did their masters in other fields and changed to Software when they were in OPT. But do not know some one who has worked in H1b as Mechanical engineer and then got another H1 as software engineer. Has anyone with my simillar background, gone past the I140 stage?
Thanks.
more...
vineet
01-17 07:32 PM
Heard about a similar issue with the EAD for a colleague at work today. Will let you know what the company lawyers recommend him to do....
-Viny
-Viny
2010 nina dobrev vampire diaries
abhijitp
01-26 05:52 PM
I collected 7 letters yesterday by simply talking to people walking in & out of a grocery store. I wanted to see how it will be at the BART station and I am very encouraged by the response received yesterday. Most people (including GC holders and citizens) provided their names and addresses and signatures without hesitation.
The reasons for only 7 letters (could have collected 15):
1. I was on my own after all. When I was talking to someone a bunch of 3 walked out of the store and I could not do anything.
2. Heavy rains which prevented people from getting out in general.
My only worry now... if you guys in and around Fremont continue to look the other way, ignoring this call to your precious 1 hour on any ONE weekday evening, I might get only 200 letters... when you and I together could easily get 1000+ over 2 weeks!
The reasons for only 7 letters (could have collected 15):
1. I was on my own after all. When I was talking to someone a bunch of 3 walked out of the store and I could not do anything.
2. Heavy rains which prevented people from getting out in general.
My only worry now... if you guys in and around Fremont continue to look the other way, ignoring this call to your precious 1 hour on any ONE weekday evening, I might get only 200 letters... when you and I together could easily get 1000+ over 2 weeks!
more...
sareesh
11-18 05:15 PM
Hello enggr,
I might have the same problem.
where you able to convert to EB3?
Please let me know.
Thanks,
SG
I might have the same problem.
where you able to convert to EB3?
Please let me know.
Thanks,
SG
hair Nina Dobrev 500x800
h1-b forever
04-22 08:33 AM
small correction:
president is not a member of the congress and neither are the judges (separation of powers)
you are right we may sue congress but to win that is much much tough as even the judge is been appointed by the president which i guess is a member of congress :) but one can certainly try.
president is not a member of the congress and neither are the judges (separation of powers)
you are right we may sue congress but to win that is much much tough as even the judge is been appointed by the president which i guess is a member of congress :) but one can certainly try.
more...
espoir
06-20 11:58 PM
I think if PD remains current and continues to be current after october, then the I-485s are processed and approved as per the receipt date(RD). So your RD matters if everything continues to be current. If they retrogress, then I-485s are still processed as per I-485 RD, regardless of PD, but if the that PD is not current, then it it will be "placed in suspense" until such PD will become current.
I'm assuming that will happen. PDs will be retrogressed back sometime in sep/oct. And they will process all the current flood of applications. Not sure when they will get to June and beyond RDs(as per processing times they r still processing late 2006 RDs now). And after few months(say 6 months) they will move forward the PDs few months at a time.
The above is just my theory. I could be totally off, so don't come to any conclusions.
I'm assuming that will happen. PDs will be retrogressed back sometime in sep/oct. And they will process all the current flood of applications. Not sure when they will get to June and beyond RDs(as per processing times they r still processing late 2006 RDs now). And after few months(say 6 months) they will move forward the PDs few months at a time.
The above is just my theory. I could be totally off, so don't come to any conclusions.
hot nina dobrev)♥
morchu
08-01 12:12 AM
Anything you will take for your H1 stamping + documents to prove that she is your wife. Her H4 status depends on your H1 status, your relationship and your ability to support her.
My wife is planning to go for H4 visa stamping in October. My question is can she go alone and what kind of documents she need. Our I-485 applications have reached USCIS on July 2nd. Any reply will be greatly appreciated.
My wife is planning to go for H4 visa stamping in October. My question is can she go alone and what kind of documents she need. Our I-485 applications have reached USCIS on July 2nd. Any reply will be greatly appreciated.
more...
house nina dobrev wallpaper by
paskal
12-21 04:36 PM
/\/\/\/\/\/\
tattoo Nina-dobrev-mobile-wallpaper
singhsa3
05-18 05:31 PM
How about getting one own's Phd....
How long does it takes?
How long does it takes?
more...
pictures Nina Dobrev wallpaper
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
dresses Nina Dobrev Wallpaper
ashutrip
07-18 12:48 PM
how long does it take to get Hard Copy of labor Approval from atalanta center?
more...
makeup Nina Dobrev is a great
swarnapuri
06-26 12:48 PM
There is a news in news article thread that Senators Cantwell & Kyl have proposed a amendment which will open up a parallel employer sponsored GC path. Anyone has information regarding this amendment?
girlfriend Nina-dobrev-mobile-wallpaper
voldemar
03-20 11:15 AM
Not sure how withdrawing an approved I140 is good for the employee??
The general feeling is that I140 withdrawal is not necessary for the employer (but H1b is). But employers used to do this for labor substitution - now there is no such incentive. But still some lawyers suggest employers to do this - in my old company which is a large well known software company (with 10k+ employees worldwide) the HR group follows immigration attorneys almost blindly. All immigration issues are handled by a big law firm - many of regular immigration matters are done by paralegals who does not know much (I am not exaggerating when I say I know more than them) - but our HR has a policy that they would follow what those attorney/paralegal is saying. It seems the law firm is suggesting them to withdraw all applications including approved i140 - obviously the law firm would charge them for this so that is their interest.
And law firm is right, they protect their clients. Search this forum for I-140 revocation by USCIS. I-140 was approved and then revoked by USCIS itself. In that case AC21 does not help, 485 will be denied.
The general feeling is that I140 withdrawal is not necessary for the employer (but H1b is). But employers used to do this for labor substitution - now there is no such incentive. But still some lawyers suggest employers to do this - in my old company which is a large well known software company (with 10k+ employees worldwide) the HR group follows immigration attorneys almost blindly. All immigration issues are handled by a big law firm - many of regular immigration matters are done by paralegals who does not know much (I am not exaggerating when I say I know more than them) - but our HR has a policy that they would follow what those attorney/paralegal is saying. It seems the law firm is suggesting them to withdraw all applications including approved i140 - obviously the law firm would charge them for this so that is their interest.
And law firm is right, they protect their clients. Search this forum for I-140 revocation by USCIS. I-140 was approved and then revoked by USCIS itself. In that case AC21 does not help, 485 will be denied.
hairstyles Nina Dobrev
paskal
12-26 01:27 AM
so that it's seen in the morning :)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
deepimpact
02-11 01:03 PM
Most of Eb2 ( Not all ) are qualified for STEM and may release up to 30k visas each year to EB3. that will clear Eb3 backlog in 1-2 years. Don't forget that we have some Eb3 people with STEM degree too.
Actually almost all of EB1A and B will also qualify for STEM and add about 20-30K more each year for spillover.
Actually almost all of EB1A and B will also qualify for STEM and add about 20-30K more each year for spillover.
yanj
12-19 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by genius
Unfortunately,kaplan doesnt issue I-20's for GMAT anymore .
Originally Posted by genius
Unfortunately,kaplan doesnt issue I-20's for GMAT anymore .
No comments:
Post a Comment