Abhishika
10-17 07:28 PM
Hi All,
My hubbys PD is dec 04 Eb2. His I140 was filed on July 07 and in aug 07
we have applied for I-485.
I got the I-131 receipt notice which is having A# number.
Does A# number means 140 approval ? Online status of 140 shows as pending?
Thank You
Abhishika
My hubbys PD is dec 04 Eb2. His I140 was filed on July 07 and in aug 07
we have applied for I-485.
I got the I-131 receipt notice which is having A# number.
Does A# number means 140 approval ? Online status of 140 shows as pending?
Thank You
Abhishika
wallpaper Brad Pitt has agreed to a new
sandeepdream
05-14 11:19 PM
My wife has a valid H4 visa and she's currently in India as her company is applying for a fresh H1B visa for her. I'm currently in US on valid H1B visa till 7-Dec-2011.(Her H4 will also expire on the same date)
Qs: After getting the recipt for H1B application, can she travel on her H4 visa or does she have to wait till the approval\rejection of H1B?
Please note that this is not a case of H4 to H1 transfer.
Qs: After getting the recipt for H1B application, can she travel on her H4 visa or does she have to wait till the approval\rejection of H1B?
Please note that this is not a case of H4 to H1 transfer.
ibb
02-08 05:04 PM
If I apply for H1b in April, 2008 and choose consular visa processing, and the H1b starts in Oct, 2008. Do I have to go to the consular for a H1b visa? I might receive a EAD from 485 before October, and if I do, I would like to use EAD but keep the option of H1b open.
Can anyone answer me???
Say I don't activate my H1b in Oct 2008, but H1b is valid for three years, does it mean I can activate it any time by going to the consular for a H1b visa from 10/2008 to 09/2011? Of course I will keep my status valid (AOS) throughout the period.
Thank you for your answer!!!
Can anyone answer me???
Say I don't activate my H1b in Oct 2008, but H1b is valid for three years, does it mean I can activate it any time by going to the consular for a H1b visa from 10/2008 to 09/2011? Of course I will keep my status valid (AOS) throughout the period.
Thank you for your answer!!!
2011 The rothers
gc28262
04-16 11:35 AM
Yes, you have to file a change of address form.
Also make sure your employer files an LCA for the new location.
Change of Address Regulation (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1305.html)
Online change of address link (https://egov.uscis.gov/crisgwi/go?action=coa)
Also make sure your employer files an LCA for the new location.
Change of Address Regulation (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1305.html)
Online change of address link (https://egov.uscis.gov/crisgwi/go?action=coa)
more...
a_paradkar
10-31 01:46 PM
Friends
The questions is, if i have an approved I-140 from Company A and I switch over to Company B, then would i be able to file my 485 based on 140 related to Company A when my PD for Labor (company A) becomes current.
Thanks, please let me know
The questions is, if i have an approved I-140 from Company A and I switch over to Company B, then would i be able to file my 485 based on 140 related to Company A when my PD for Labor (company A) becomes current.
Thanks, please let me know
anilsal
10-16 02:39 AM
http://anilgeneral.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-to-start-and-maintain-state-chapter.html
Here is a veteran's tale of starting and maintaining a state chapter.
Please read it and if you drink Gatorade once in a while, then ask yourself the question : "Is It In You?"
Here is a veteran's tale of starting and maintaining a state chapter.
Please read it and if you drink Gatorade once in a while, then ask yourself the question : "Is It In You?"
more...
eager_immi
02-12 10:41 PM
I think u can as long as prior employer does not revoke i140, please consult a good attorney
Current situation :
Labor approved(eb3 with pd of July 03),
I140 in process,
In my seventh year of H1b on a one year extension expiring in August.
Please advise if I can change employers now and still get a new H1 though I am in my seventh year ?
Thanks
Current situation :
Labor approved(eb3 with pd of July 03),
I140 in process,
In my seventh year of H1b on a one year extension expiring in August.
Please advise if I can change employers now and still get a new H1 though I am in my seventh year ?
Thanks
2010 Brad consistently cited by
lonedesi
07-10 03:06 PM
I was wondering how many people really got the opportunity to use the reinstated PPS service for I-140 petition? Has it been useful to the most of people who are stuck in the I-140 backlogs for more than year now or has it only helped a tiny segment of the folks who really needed it to maintain their status?
What is the purpose of USCIS reinstating this PPS if it only helps only very few people. I think its time, USCIS either process the pending applications soon or reinstate PPS for everyone. 1 year is a long time to wait for an I-140 approval when USCIS can re-allocate the staff at quick notice (like those folks who received EADs in two weeks during June 08) if they want to. Its high time USCIS address this issue and get us out of this mess. Visa numbers does not have to be available to process I-140..so there is no reason for them to delay or give excuses.
What is the purpose of USCIS reinstating this PPS if it only helps only very few people. I think its time, USCIS either process the pending applications soon or reinstate PPS for everyone. 1 year is a long time to wait for an I-140 approval when USCIS can re-allocate the staff at quick notice (like those folks who received EADs in two weeks during June 08) if they want to. Its high time USCIS address this issue and get us out of this mess. Visa numbers does not have to be available to process I-140..so there is no reason for them to delay or give excuses.
more...
pd_recapturing
07-02 07:09 AM
For item 16 what should be the CFR code: is it (c)(9) or (c)(0)(9), since there are 3 parentheses...please help!!!!
my lawyer told me (C)(9)
my lawyer told me (C)(9)
hair his rother#39;s, Brad Pitt,
Blog Feeds
04-23 11:32 AM
As of April 6, 2009, all applicants for non-immigrant visas at the U.S. consulate in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, must now enroll at the Applicant Service Center (ASC) fingerprint appointment before attending the interview appointment. ASC employees take applicants’ pictures and fingerprints and provide that data to the consulate. Non-immigrant visas are issued to foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States on a temporary basis. More information is available at:
www.ciudadjuarez.usconsulate.gov/non-immigrant_visas.html (http://www.ciudadjuarez.usconsulate.gov/non-immigrant_visas.html)
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Immigration-law-answers-blog/~3/o39aUeP8HSg/)
www.ciudadjuarez.usconsulate.gov/non-immigrant_visas.html (http://www.ciudadjuarez.usconsulate.gov/non-immigrant_visas.html)
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Immigration-law-answers-blog/~3/o39aUeP8HSg/)
more...
Blog Feeds
06-23 11:30 PM
The United Food and Commercial Workers Union International, one of the country's major unions, was upset about how raids were conducted in 2006 at Swift meatpacking plants around the country. So they did something about it. They created a commission of experts to hold hearings about work site raids and this week they released their findings in a report entitled Raids on Workers: Destroying our Rights. According to the UCFW: �This commission was formed to examine allegations of abuse and misconduct by ICE agents during the course of immigration raids,� said Joseph T. Hansen, founding chairman of the commission and...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/commission-report-criticizes-work-site-raids.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/commission-report-criticizes-work-site-raids.html)
hot rad pitt brother.
Kitiara
09-26 10:12 AM
Does anyone have any URLs of sites that go into Photoshop 7? I haven't had much of a chance to get into playing with this yet, but I'd like to know how to do all these wonderful graphics you guys keep coming out with. :)
more...
house Brad Pitt#39;s brother Doug
gsarkar
02-18 07:27 AM
Dear members,
I am working in India. I have an L1 petition which is valid from sep 2004 through sep 2007 from my company. When I went for visa stamping in 2004 the visa officer gave me a visa valid from sep 2004 through Nov 2005. This meant that I could enter US only in the first year of my petition but continue to stay legally in US on an I-94 through Sep 2007. As of today, I may have to leave for US in March 2007 on this L1 and my question is that if I go for a renewal at the US consulate will they renew my visa for a petition that will expire in Sep 2007. Considering that there are only 7 valid months left on the petition.
Thanks a lot.
I am working in India. I have an L1 petition which is valid from sep 2004 through sep 2007 from my company. When I went for visa stamping in 2004 the visa officer gave me a visa valid from sep 2004 through Nov 2005. This meant that I could enter US only in the first year of my petition but continue to stay legally in US on an I-94 through Sep 2007. As of today, I may have to leave for US in March 2007 on this L1 and my question is that if I go for a renewal at the US consulate will they renew my visa for a petition that will expire in Sep 2007. Considering that there are only 7 valid months left on the petition.
Thanks a lot.
tattoo Brad Pitt and the Kids: Out
go_guy123
04-07 02:15 PM
SoCal family charged with arranging fake marriages - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fake_marriages_immigration_fraud)
Nothing unusual...infact just a tiny tip of an iceberg. Family based immigration including marriage constitute close to 85-90% of US new immigrants. Other avenues being tightened in recent years, we are sure to see more and more. In fact in recent years I have seen many H1Bs/F1 marrying USC.
For every case being busted, there are many many undetected cases. It is called legal arbitrage, with other areas being tightened amd under attack and marriage based being relatively untouched, it is a matter of time that one will increase.
Nothing unusual...infact just a tiny tip of an iceberg. Family based immigration including marriage constitute close to 85-90% of US new immigrants. Other avenues being tightened in recent years, we are sure to see more and more. In fact in recent years I have seen many H1Bs/F1 marrying USC.
For every case being busted, there are many many undetected cases. It is called legal arbitrage, with other areas being tightened amd under attack and marriage based being relatively untouched, it is a matter of time that one will increase.
more...
pictures Brad Pitt News!
Baka Otaku
10-30 06:24 PM
OKay, How do you get the drawing effect on Flash, like a line drawing itself, and gradually getting longer or something like that. Oyou know.
dresses Brad Pitt has a rother
krishnam70
02-27 02:05 PM
I am Cross Charging and applying for AOS filing. While filing do I need to provide BONA FIDE copies of Marriage & Birth certifcates. ??
Its mentioned in the application right? You need to provide certified copies of marraige and birth certificates matching your application
cheers
kris
---always good to check with attorney
Its mentioned in the application right? You need to provide certified copies of marraige and birth certificates matching your application
cheers
kris
---always good to check with attorney
more...
makeup Actor Brad Pitt#39;s brother
Macaca
06-22 06:55 AM
Senate Passes Energy Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062101026.html?hpid=topnews) Democrats Prevail; Mileage Standard Would Be Raised By Sholnn Freeman (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/sholnn+freeman/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, June 22, 2007
The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters.
After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.
The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.
Democratic leaders said they hoped the legislation will be a rallying point for voters concerned about national security, climate change and near-record gasoline prices.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels and for the first time in decades significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader.
Final passage of the bill capped an otherwise rancorous week in which senators grappled over energy policy. Early yesterday, Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction after a $32 billion package of energy tax cuts was blocked on a procedural vote. But late in the day, a bipartisan group of senators came together to break an impasse on vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would require cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicle to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Earlier in the week, the Senate rejected additions to the bill that would have pumped billions of federal dollars into efforts to ramp up production of a coal-based fuel for cars and trucks, which proponents had called an important alternative to petroleum. Additionally, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) failed to win approval for a proposal to allow exploration for natural gas off the Virginia coast, and Republicans blocked an effort to require that more of the nation's electricity come for renewable sources.
The passage of fuel-efficiency measure was viewed as a major triumph for the Democrats, particularly the last-minute dealmaking that enabled passage of the comprehensive change to mileage standards.
The politics of fuel economy had gone virtually unchanged since Congress passed the first nationwide standards -- known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE -- in 1975. The last time the full Senate tried to boost fuel-economy standards was in 2002, and the effort was defeated handily.
The auto industry successfully argued that large increases in efficiency standards would force them to build smaller vehicles -- the kind American consumers won't buy. In recent years, however, low mileage standards left U.S. automakers with little market defense against higher-mileage Japanese cars, particularly at times when gas prices soar. As consumers have moved gradually from SUVs and pickup trucks to smaller vehicles, Detroit's Big Three automakers have gone through a painful restructuring period.
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
The fuel-efficiency language in the Senate energy package originally had coupled a 35 mile-per-gallon standard with a requirement of 4 percent annual increases for the decade after 2020. A group led by the two Michigan senators -- Democrats Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow -- and Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had sought instead to gain support for an amendment that would impose less-stringent standards while satisfying growing demands for change in the fuel-efficiency laws.
In the compromise-- shepherded principally by Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) -- lawmakers dropped a provision that would have mandated additional 4 percent annual increases in fuel efficiency between 2021 and 2030. They also softened a provision that would have required all automakers to build substantially more vehicles that can run on ethanol and other biofuels.
After the fuel-economy vote, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), another architect of the compromise, said the nation's desire to be less dependent on foreign oil would be a "hopeless journey" without more efficient cars and trucks.
"Now, in our vehicles, we have better cup-holders, we have keyless entry, we have better music systems, we have heated seats," Dorgan said. "It is time that we expect more automobile efficiency."
Senators who had previously been friendly to the auto industry said they were changing their position after growing weary of the industry's position. "I listened and I listened, year after year," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said on the Senate floor. "And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change."
In the end, Senate aides said, Levin's group did not have the votes.
Democratic leaders said the bipartisan backing of the compromise worked out in the Senate would help build support in the House when that chamber House begins debate on its energy package. Already, Rep. John D. Dingell, (D-Mich.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have battled over fuel economy.
In another Senate battle yesterday, Democrats lost a fight against oil companies when Republicans blocked a $32 billion tax package that would have poured money into alternative fuel projects by raising taxes on oil and gas companies.
President Bush, meanwhile, visited the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens, Ala., where he touted nuclear power as a clean, dependable and safe source of electricity and promised to streamline the federal regulatory process to ease the way for the construction of new plants.
"Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases," Bush said. "If you're interested in cleaning up the air you ought to be for nuclear power."
Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher in Athens, Ala., contributed to this report.
The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters.
After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.
The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.
Democratic leaders said they hoped the legislation will be a rallying point for voters concerned about national security, climate change and near-record gasoline prices.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels and for the first time in decades significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader.
Final passage of the bill capped an otherwise rancorous week in which senators grappled over energy policy. Early yesterday, Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction after a $32 billion package of energy tax cuts was blocked on a procedural vote. But late in the day, a bipartisan group of senators came together to break an impasse on vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would require cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicle to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Earlier in the week, the Senate rejected additions to the bill that would have pumped billions of federal dollars into efforts to ramp up production of a coal-based fuel for cars and trucks, which proponents had called an important alternative to petroleum. Additionally, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) failed to win approval for a proposal to allow exploration for natural gas off the Virginia coast, and Republicans blocked an effort to require that more of the nation's electricity come for renewable sources.
The passage of fuel-efficiency measure was viewed as a major triumph for the Democrats, particularly the last-minute dealmaking that enabled passage of the comprehensive change to mileage standards.
The politics of fuel economy had gone virtually unchanged since Congress passed the first nationwide standards -- known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE -- in 1975. The last time the full Senate tried to boost fuel-economy standards was in 2002, and the effort was defeated handily.
The auto industry successfully argued that large increases in efficiency standards would force them to build smaller vehicles -- the kind American consumers won't buy. In recent years, however, low mileage standards left U.S. automakers with little market defense against higher-mileage Japanese cars, particularly at times when gas prices soar. As consumers have moved gradually from SUVs and pickup trucks to smaller vehicles, Detroit's Big Three automakers have gone through a painful restructuring period.
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
The fuel-efficiency language in the Senate energy package originally had coupled a 35 mile-per-gallon standard with a requirement of 4 percent annual increases for the decade after 2020. A group led by the two Michigan senators -- Democrats Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow -- and Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had sought instead to gain support for an amendment that would impose less-stringent standards while satisfying growing demands for change in the fuel-efficiency laws.
In the compromise-- shepherded principally by Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) -- lawmakers dropped a provision that would have mandated additional 4 percent annual increases in fuel efficiency between 2021 and 2030. They also softened a provision that would have required all automakers to build substantially more vehicles that can run on ethanol and other biofuels.
After the fuel-economy vote, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), another architect of the compromise, said the nation's desire to be less dependent on foreign oil would be a "hopeless journey" without more efficient cars and trucks.
"Now, in our vehicles, we have better cup-holders, we have keyless entry, we have better music systems, we have heated seats," Dorgan said. "It is time that we expect more automobile efficiency."
Senators who had previously been friendly to the auto industry said they were changing their position after growing weary of the industry's position. "I listened and I listened, year after year," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said on the Senate floor. "And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change."
In the end, Senate aides said, Levin's group did not have the votes.
Democratic leaders said the bipartisan backing of the compromise worked out in the Senate would help build support in the House when that chamber House begins debate on its energy package. Already, Rep. John D. Dingell, (D-Mich.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have battled over fuel economy.
In another Senate battle yesterday, Democrats lost a fight against oil companies when Republicans blocked a $32 billion tax package that would have poured money into alternative fuel projects by raising taxes on oil and gas companies.
President Bush, meanwhile, visited the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens, Ala., where he touted nuclear power as a clean, dependable and safe source of electricity and promised to streamline the federal regulatory process to ease the way for the construction of new plants.
"Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases," Bush said. "If you're interested in cleaning up the air you ought to be for nuclear power."
Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher in Athens, Ala., contributed to this report.
girlfriend Brad Pitt and his rother
Blog Feeds
05-27 08:30 AM
I've been hearing reports behind the scenes over the last few days about a growing rift in the pro-immigration movement between whether it is better to hold out for comprehensive immigration reform or switch to a strategy of pursuing significant lesser immigration measures like the DREAM Act or AgJobs. As I've indicated before, strong arguments can be made for either. Now some of those arguments are making there way in to the media such as this nugget from today's HuffPost Hill email alert: TOMORROW'S PAPERS TODAY - The Hill's Alexander Bolton on how immigration reform is straining Chuck Schumer and...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/piecemeal-versus-comprehensive.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/piecemeal-versus-comprehensive.html)
hairstyles Actor Brad Pitt#39;s brother is
lobstars
05-04 02:57 PM
is this what you meant? it might be helpful anyway:)
board.flashkit.com/board/...did=274366 (http://board.flashkit.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=274366)
board.flashkit.com/board/...did=274366 (http://board.flashkit.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=274366)
vivekhruparel
07-15 01:33 PM
I am in. My 485 is going to be rejected and will be sent back in a couple weeks
shaikhshehzadali
06-25 12:56 PM
Anyone who filed on 6/7/2007....still waiting for checks to be encashed?
No comments:
Post a Comment