aristotle
01-31 01:27 PM
Revoking the previously approved I140 doesn't invalidate the H1 extension/transfer. But to get further extensions/transfers, you need A) labor pending for one year OR B) approved I140 from the new employer.
wallpaper Tom Brady and the Patriots
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.
Libra
08-13 11:03 AM
Members who became seniors on this forum, if you have contributed to IV so far, then can you guys put that in your signature, and junior members can you please think of contributing to IV.
Contribute to IV and show your support.
Contribute to IV and show your support.
2011 Quarterback Tom Brady stood
martinvisalaw
07-13 05:26 PM
You shouldn't need an experience letter to apply for a H-1B visa, especially when the visa is for a different company. Eligibility for H-1B status doesn't depend on experience, it is education that is important.
more...
jackdaniels
06-11 06:46 PM
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1631758,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
amsgc
04-04 10:56 PM
Thanks for posting this link - it is very useful.
I had not seen an update from USCIS yet that explained clearly the severity of the backlog. Next time we do an interview/radio show etc., it may be a good idea to point to this press release by the USCIS. We often hear that some congressmen are not convinced that it takes more than 7 years to get a GC. Next time we do a letter campaign or meet with a congressmen, let us print this out and take it with us.
I found this in another website:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=685c8d8b3b760210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Since the beginning of this fiscal year (October 2008), USCIS has adjudicated over 75,000 employer petitions, reducing the pending caseload of petitions to under 55,000.USCIS� goal is to have adjudicated all the older employer petitions, and to be processing newer petitions within 4 months, by the end of September 2009"
I had not seen an update from USCIS yet that explained clearly the severity of the backlog. Next time we do an interview/radio show etc., it may be a good idea to point to this press release by the USCIS. We often hear that some congressmen are not convinced that it takes more than 7 years to get a GC. Next time we do a letter campaign or meet with a congressmen, let us print this out and take it with us.
I found this in another website:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=685c8d8b3b760210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Since the beginning of this fiscal year (October 2008), USCIS has adjudicated over 75,000 employer petitions, reducing the pending caseload of petitions to under 55,000.USCIS� goal is to have adjudicated all the older employer petitions, and to be processing newer petitions within 4 months, by the end of September 2009"
more...
Karthikthiru
08-01 11:16 PM
We all have to keep assuming like this only. The only way is to lobby and increase the the VISA numbers per year. So we all should show up on the Sep 13th rally and show our strength
Karthik
Karthik
2010 better make sure Tom Brady
![boston globe tom brady. [Boston Globe]](http://slanchreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/randy-moss.jpg "[Boston Globe]")
scorpion00
10-06 02:43 PM
Hi Manish,
I hope everything goes well with you.
Did the officials call you or come to see you in person?
I hope everything goes well with you.
Did the officials call you or come to see you in person?
more...
cessua
10-13 07:09 PM
How much of an argument we have if US keeps toping rankings of most competitive countries to do business in the world?
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5454.html
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2006/BCI.pdf
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5454.html
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2006/BCI.pdf
hair Jim Davis, The Boston Globe,
milind70
02-18 12:16 PM
Hello IVans,
My employer did not pay for I485 expenses (USCIS fees, Lawyer expenses and Medical exam expenses). I paid all these expenses out of my pocket. Today one of my friends told me that these expenses could qualify as tax-deductible expenses. I have my doubts, but want to get you thoughts.
Thanks.
I am pretty sure the medical exam expenses do qualify for tax deductible.
As far as lawyer fees and USCIS fees there are two school of thought, one says the are tax dedutible and other say they are not, but as per my CPA( and i take services of a professional one and charges around 250 USD for my tax filing) anything that is work related is tax deductable i.e. softwares,stationary,part of apartment rent(if u telecommute),expenses towards job hunting, even H1B visa stamping fees,even bad loans can be written off as loses
My employer did not pay for I485 expenses (USCIS fees, Lawyer expenses and Medical exam expenses). I paid all these expenses out of my pocket. Today one of my friends told me that these expenses could qualify as tax-deductible expenses. I have my doubts, but want to get you thoughts.
Thanks.
I am pretty sure the medical exam expenses do qualify for tax deductible.
As far as lawyer fees and USCIS fees there are two school of thought, one says the are tax dedutible and other say they are not, but as per my CPA( and i take services of a professional one and charges around 250 USD for my tax filing) anything that is work related is tax deductable i.e. softwares,stationary,part of apartment rent(if u telecommute),expenses towards job hunting, even H1B visa stamping fees,even bad loans can be written off as loses
more...
bkshres
01-22 12:50 PM
I am also in similar situation.
I have pending I-485 and used AC21 to switch to the new company but I am still in H1B status. However, my wife is using EAD and she need to travel using AP.
Can anyone suggest whether there will be any issue in travelling outside USA, if I (Primary applicant) is still in H1B status but used AC-21 and wife is using EAD (has to use AP)?
Thanks in advance.
BK
I have pending I-485 and used AC21 to switch to the new company but I am still in H1B status. However, my wife is using EAD and she need to travel using AP.
Can anyone suggest whether there will be any issue in travelling outside USA, if I (Primary applicant) is still in H1B status but used AC-21 and wife is using EAD (has to use AP)?
Thanks in advance.
BK
hot Lynch of the Boston Globe,
pappu
02-18 01:06 AM
Hello Varsha and NJ chapter members,
Thank you for taking the lead with the Meet the lawmaker initiative. It is very important for our EB community to be active and vibrant on the issues that are important to us. We cannot emphasize enough the importance of meeting the lawmaker in our home states. As you already know, in campaign like ours, it is the most vibrant communities who ultimately succeed.
The real question is when would there be sufficient number of community members who would feel the need and the motivation to be vibrantly active. It is the fence sitters that we have to convince so that more number of green card applicants, suffering due to retrogression, would feel the urge to actively participate in fixing their own issues. And your act of sharing your experiences with the community about what you were able to accomplish, is a big step in the right direction to motivate others to emulate what you have been able to do. In effect, today, you helped raise the level of consciousness of the community and prompted a sizeable number of members to think and believe that they could meet the lawmakers and make the difference in this debate. I am confident that most members, who listened to your narration tonight, were convinced that they could do it too. That is the message that we have to send out so that the energies emanating from our frustration due to delays with the system, which are often times visible on IV forums, could be channelized into positive direction. We see that there are many reasons why people do not actively participate in Immigration Voice efforts. A large part of these community members could be described in two broad categories:-
(1.) Green card applicants who are totally unaware of the current situation and thus they are indifferent towards the reasoning and the depth of the problem causing delays in the system. They think that their individual applications will get approved in "few months" so there is nothing they need to do.
(2.) The victims of the retrogression come from various parts of the world.
The members who belong to this group are already disheartened with the delay of their application and have waited patiently for their turn in the line for several years. This long period of wait has made this group of people to lose faith and so they do not believe in themselves. They don't actually think that they can make any difference in this debate to facilitate anything that would change the system. Because they do not believe in themselves, these people do not also believe that others like them can do anything to change the system either. So often times they refuse to participate, not knowing that they are refusing to participate in an effort that will ultimately facilitate the change in the system.
The positive message, like the one from you on the conference call today will help more and more members to believe that they can actively participate in changing the system to change their and their families' lives. And it is this belief in our own self that will ultimately wake-up this community. I am confident that after listening to your narration on today's call, more and more members will sincerely attempt to meet their lawmakers and will educate other members about their efforts. I believe that this community has a massive potential to make the change. The only question is when would the sizable number of IV members feel motivated enough to get up to actively participate in this process to facilitate the coming change? After today's call, I believe that the answer to this question is, very soon.
Again, Thank you for actively participating in the effort and more importantly, encouraging others to participate actively. Please continue to help and motivate other members in the organization.
Regards,
Pappu on behalf of IV team
Thank you for taking the lead with the Meet the lawmaker initiative. It is very important for our EB community to be active and vibrant on the issues that are important to us. We cannot emphasize enough the importance of meeting the lawmaker in our home states. As you already know, in campaign like ours, it is the most vibrant communities who ultimately succeed.
The real question is when would there be sufficient number of community members who would feel the need and the motivation to be vibrantly active. It is the fence sitters that we have to convince so that more number of green card applicants, suffering due to retrogression, would feel the urge to actively participate in fixing their own issues. And your act of sharing your experiences with the community about what you were able to accomplish, is a big step in the right direction to motivate others to emulate what you have been able to do. In effect, today, you helped raise the level of consciousness of the community and prompted a sizeable number of members to think and believe that they could meet the lawmakers and make the difference in this debate. I am confident that most members, who listened to your narration tonight, were convinced that they could do it too. That is the message that we have to send out so that the energies emanating from our frustration due to delays with the system, which are often times visible on IV forums, could be channelized into positive direction. We see that there are many reasons why people do not actively participate in Immigration Voice efforts. A large part of these community members could be described in two broad categories:-
(1.) Green card applicants who are totally unaware of the current situation and thus they are indifferent towards the reasoning and the depth of the problem causing delays in the system. They think that their individual applications will get approved in "few months" so there is nothing they need to do.
(2.) The victims of the retrogression come from various parts of the world.
The members who belong to this group are already disheartened with the delay of their application and have waited patiently for their turn in the line for several years. This long period of wait has made this group of people to lose faith and so they do not believe in themselves. They don't actually think that they can make any difference in this debate to facilitate anything that would change the system. Because they do not believe in themselves, these people do not also believe that others like them can do anything to change the system either. So often times they refuse to participate, not knowing that they are refusing to participate in an effort that will ultimately facilitate the change in the system.
The positive message, like the one from you on the conference call today will help more and more members to believe that they can actively participate in changing the system to change their and their families' lives. And it is this belief in our own self that will ultimately wake-up this community. I am confident that after listening to your narration on today's call, more and more members will sincerely attempt to meet their lawmakers and will educate other members about their efforts. I believe that this community has a massive potential to make the change. The only question is when would the sizable number of IV members feel motivated enough to get up to actively participate in this process to facilitate the coming change? After today's call, I believe that the answer to this question is, very soon.
Again, Thank you for actively participating in the effort and more importantly, encouraging others to participate actively. Please continue to help and motivate other members in the organization.
Regards,
Pappu on behalf of IV team
more...
house Leonard Little forces Brady to
dixie
02-10 07:30 PM
I agree - the UK govt's policy statement, at least on the doctor's issue was clear : "We had a shortage earlier, therefore we needed foreign doctors. The shortage no longer exists, so we no longer need you. Please leave before mm-dd-yyyy". Contrast that with the US govts "we love your brains but hate your bodies policy" .. on one hand corporations cannot do without foreign skilled labor, at the same time folks like Lou FOULMOUTH and his cronies in congress and elsewhere cannot do without bashing them. In the tug-of-war between these two parties, we are left to rot on the sidelines - neither kicked out, nor allowed a rightful place to progress in society. If thats the case, why don't they simply remove the dual intent clause (and all those 1-yr / 3yr dole-outs aka extensions) from the H1-B program ? Thats better than having to live 15 years on an H1-B.
UK is at lease clear what is their immigration policy. I would like to have similar stand from US Govt where they come out and say in clear words "we don't want to in here" OR "Come here, work for 6 years and leave" OR "we cant you to stay and fix the GC process.
UK is at lease clear what is their immigration policy. I would like to have similar stand from US Govt where they come out and say in clear words "we don't want to in here" OR "Come here, work for 6 years and leave" OR "we cant you to stay and fix the GC process.
tattoo Patriots quarterback Tom
shan74
01-12 07:49 PM
Thanks and wait for ur response. Also i wanted to know whether my employer or lawyer will come to know if i apply for FOIA, and will it affect my application. Another thing is my employer is not responding whether my 140 is approved or not. so i really don;t know the status of my application and he is not willing to give me the receipt #.
So please let me know will it affect my application.
thanks
So please let me know will it affect my application.
thanks
more...
pictures sacked Tom Brady (left) in
tulips
10-15 03:00 PM
Hello,
Sorry to be posting here but how do I start a new post?
Here is my situation:
My husband started GC and our PD is nov 2006. I 140 approved. I am on H1 B. Now, my husband decided to move out of country for studies. So, our application is abandoned right? We have not received any RFEs so can he still apply for AP? Otherwise, how else can he visit USA...H4? Can he still get H4? If yes can it be applied from any US embassy? What all documents are needed? OR should he just try tourist visa now?
Thank you!
Sorry to be posting here but how do I start a new post?
Here is my situation:
My husband started GC and our PD is nov 2006. I 140 approved. I am on H1 B. Now, my husband decided to move out of country for studies. So, our application is abandoned right? We have not received any RFEs so can he still apply for AP? Otherwise, how else can he visit USA...H4? Can he still get H4? If yes can it be applied from any US embassy? What all documents are needed? OR should he just try tourist visa now?
Thank you!
dresses (Globe Staff Photo / Jim Davis
ishwarmahajan@yahoo.com
09-24 05:37 PM
I am hoping you are going to change job in the same profession. What iti means is if you are working on technical side in IT, you are going to continue on technical side no matter what your designation is. I feel that USCIS has clear guidlines on this. please refer to the link below:
http://stats.bls.gov/soc/socguide.htm
I think following information on this link could help you to make a quick decision. I addition you should consult to attorney before you make your final decision.
"Supervisors of professional and technical workers usually have a background similar to the workers they supervise, and are therefore classified with the workers they supervise. Likewise, team leaders, lead workers and supervisors of production, sales, and service workers who spend at least 20 percent of their time performing work similar to the workers they supervise are classified with the workers they supervise.
First-line managers and supervisors of production, service, and sales workers who spend more than 80 percent of their time performing supervisory activities are classified separately in the appropriate supervisor category, since their work activities are distinct from those of the workers they supervise. First-line managers are generally found in smaller establishments where they perform both supervisory and management functions, such as accounting, marketing, and personnel work."
:):):)
Thanks,
Ishwar
http://stats.bls.gov/soc/socguide.htm
I think following information on this link could help you to make a quick decision. I addition you should consult to attorney before you make your final decision.
"Supervisors of professional and technical workers usually have a background similar to the workers they supervise, and are therefore classified with the workers they supervise. Likewise, team leaders, lead workers and supervisors of production, sales, and service workers who spend at least 20 percent of their time performing work similar to the workers they supervise are classified with the workers they supervise.
First-line managers and supervisors of production, service, and sales workers who spend more than 80 percent of their time performing supervisory activities are classified separately in the appropriate supervisor category, since their work activities are distinct from those of the workers they supervise. First-line managers are generally found in smaller establishments where they perform both supervisory and management functions, such as accounting, marketing, and personnel work."
:):):)
Thanks,
Ishwar
more...
makeup Brady#39;s three first-half
tonyHK12
11-30 09:14 PM
We need to get all these businesses to join together with Immigration voice and support us by lobbying and funding.
No Great H-1b will come here if its going to take 10-20 years to get a Green card.
I would suggest, lets have another action item to write to these companies about IV and ask for their help for Legal Immigrants that everyone needs.
This is a big thing that is missing so far.
See how the president of the Agricultural board, unions appear on TV asking for support for illegals and also get invited to Congress.
No Great H-1b will come here if its going to take 10-20 years to get a Green card.
I would suggest, lets have another action item to write to these companies about IV and ask for their help for Legal Immigrants that everyone needs.
This is a big thing that is missing so far.
See how the president of the Agricultural board, unions appear on TV asking for support for illegals and also get invited to Congress.
girlfriend Tom Brady back at practice
chanduv23
06-16 11:10 AM
I think we need the list of new congress men/ women to call as part of phase 4 of the campaign.
Concentrate on your local lawmakers and CHC members. Sometime back, IV experts told us that we need more republican support too so concentrate on republican lawmakers too.
Concentrate on your local lawmakers and CHC members. Sometime back, IV experts told us that we need more republican support too so concentrate on republican lawmakers too.
hairstyles Jim Davis/Globe Staff
santb1975
01-28 09:46 PM
you are awesome
Tomorrow evening, can you rise to the occasion???
Tomorrow evening, can you rise to the occasion???
rkotamurthy
02-14 06:13 PM
^^ Bump
apahilaj
07-19 07:41 AM
Hi Dazed, thanks for your response. I checked the filing instructions on 485 form and it does not mention I 134 form any where. I did not file this form since my lawyer never asked me to do so.
Do you or anyone in this forum know, what happens to the application in that case, RFE, etc?
Thanks again.
Do you or anyone in this forum know, what happens to the application in that case, RFE, etc?
Thanks again.
No comments:
Post a Comment