mundakamal1
10-14 06:28 AM
I appeared for h1b stamping at new Delhi us embassy. VO kept my passport and forms for admin processing. VO told me it may take 2-4 weeks. they didn't give me any slips ( pink/yellow/green). I am not sure what kind of processing they wanted to do in my case
here is my case
PIMS found
h1b change of employer about 2 months ago
working for desi consulting company for last 4 years. new employer is a big American company
Undergrad from US university.
VO mentioned its random check
here is my case
PIMS found
h1b change of employer about 2 months ago
working for desi consulting company for last 4 years. new employer is a big American company
Undergrad from US university.
VO mentioned its random check
wallpaper pictures Cowes Week 2011 Calendar With Week Numbers Uk. CNET UK was
jonty_11
06-21 05:23 PM
You will get RFE from USCIS if u have not taken all necessary veccinations.and u will have to take them then...
gc_maine2
10-23 12:12 PM
Hi All,
My cousin has a speech pathology (MSc) degreee from india and is trying for job oppurtunities in US( myself being a s/w i have no clue how this process works), can anyone of you throw some light on what kind of visa is needed, visa process involved, any consultants who can sponsor visa, and what are other things required to get started for this process. Any information is appreceiated.
Thanks a lot
Sree
My cousin has a speech pathology (MSc) degreee from india and is trying for job oppurtunities in US( myself being a s/w i have no clue how this process works), can anyone of you throw some light on what kind of visa is needed, visa process involved, any consultants who can sponsor visa, and what are other things required to get started for this process. Any information is appreceiated.
Thanks a lot
Sree
2011 lue_calendar_2011
Blog Feeds
06-29 03:30 AM
This is a huge deal and immigration laws in dozens of states could be deemed to violate the Constitution. Arizona's 2007 law allows the state to revoke a company's business license if it is found to have employed illegally present immigrants and mandates all employers in the state use E-Verify. The law was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but a similar law in Oklahoma was largely overturned by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/showdown-supreme-court-to-hear-case-on-arizonas-2007-employer-sanctions-law.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/showdown-supreme-court-to-hear-case-on-arizonas-2007-employer-sanctions-law.html)
more...
stefanv
07-23 07:10 AM
Haha that would be cool! Though I cant imagine anyone wearing it lol :beer2:
clif
10-07 07:13 PM
I am EB2-India and my priority date (End-April 2006) is current since the beginning of September 2010. My case was transferred from Texas center to Newark, NJ in 2008. I haven't heard anything from the Newark office since my date becoming current and it's over a month now. Is this normal? Please advise.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
more...
udayak
07-20 05:11 PM
I am also looking for the same information.
Please let me know, how can a person hold
multiple H1's
Thanks
Please let me know, how can a person hold
multiple H1's
Thanks
2010 girlfriend tattoo 2011 calendar template 2011 Calendar With Week Numbers Uk.
MYGC2008
02-25 10:29 PM
Hello,
Please let me know if anybody is travelling from BLR(Bangalore) to BOS (Boston) by British Airways on Mar 1 2011.
Because my mother-in-law is visiting US and she is travelling alone. If some travel companion is there it will be helpful as she does't speak english.
Thanks in advance.
^Anybody.....
Please let me know if anybody is travelling from BLR(Bangalore) to BOS (Boston) by British Airways on Mar 1 2011.
Because my mother-in-law is visiting US and she is travelling alone. If some travel companion is there it will be helpful as she does't speak english.
Thanks in advance.
^Anybody.....
more...
jthomas
03-13 07:11 PM
I got my first H1B transfer through a lawyer. The lawyer charged $3500/- out of which approx $2500 has to be paid by the employer as per law the lawyers charges would be around 1000 dollars for some paper work.
My second H1B transfer costed be 1200 dollars as lawyers fee and all other charges has to be paid by the employer as per law.
Its best to get an immigration lawyer involved since you can have a peace of mind. There is no need of premium processing. Once you get the receipt you can join the other firm. You don't have to wait till the process gets completed.
My second H1B transfer costed be 1200 dollars as lawyers fee and all other charges has to be paid by the employer as per law.
Its best to get an immigration lawyer involved since you can have a peace of mind. There is no need of premium processing. Once you get the receipt you can join the other firm. You don't have to wait till the process gets completed.
hair 2011 calendar with week
gc_kaavaali
08-26 04:08 PM
People suggest to work for 6 months...Remember there is no rule to work for 6 months. But just incase if somebody ask at the time of applying for citizenship, you can show that you worked for 6 months.
anyone???
anyone???
more...
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
hot calendar with week numbers uk
drirshad
08-09 03:29 AM
You must submit the 485 through a lawyer if your priority is current, check the visa bulletin. You can always file when 140 is approved and you are still employed with same employer. You can also file EAD & AP for work permit and international travel. Get a lawyer asap.
more...
house 2011 WEEK TO VIEW WIREBOUND
smartboy75
06-18 02:15 AM
Hi All
I am currently working for Company A and have an approved I-140 with Company B, PD May 2004, EB2 category.
Company B applied from my H1- transfer last week, not under PERM though.
I do not yet have the receipt number of the H1 transfer and it may take 2 to 3 months for the actual H1 transfer to happen.
With the PD current, I have the following questions
1> Do I have to wait for the actual H1-transfer to finish before filling my I-485 or is it OK to start the I-485 with a receipt #?
My guess is the I-485 is an adjustment of status and since GC processing by an employer is for future employement it should'nt even matter if I am an employee when filling I-485 with the employer.
Can some experts/ senior members comment and throw some light on the matter.
Kindly reply.
Thanks
I am currently working for Company A and have an approved I-140 with Company B, PD May 2004, EB2 category.
Company B applied from my H1- transfer last week, not under PERM though.
I do not yet have the receipt number of the H1 transfer and it may take 2 to 3 months for the actual H1 transfer to happen.
With the PD current, I have the following questions
1> Do I have to wait for the actual H1-transfer to finish before filling my I-485 or is it OK to start the I-485 with a receipt #?
My guess is the I-485 is an adjustment of status and since GC processing by an employer is for future employement it should'nt even matter if I am an employee when filling I-485 with the employer.
Can some experts/ senior members comment and throw some light on the matter.
Kindly reply.
Thanks
tattoo Calendar with Week Numbers
Blog Feeds
07-10 12:10 PM
General Motors emerged from bankruptcy today and promises it is the beginning of a new age for America's leading car manufacturer. Canadian-born Ray Young, the child of Chinese immigrants, is one of the folks leading GM to what will hopefully be a return to profitability. Young was interviewed by CNBC this morning and rightfully noted that every product GM launches must be a winner if the company is going to succeed. Young also indicated that GM is planning on having an initial public offering of new shares in the next few months in order to repay loans to taxpayers. GM...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/immigrant-of-the-day-ray-young-gm-cfo.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/immigrant-of-the-day-ray-young-gm-cfo.html)
more...
pictures may calendar 2011 uk.
JunRN
05-14 08:00 PM
It depends. It may become 'U" but if your application is already 'pre-allocated a visa' during June, then you may still get some news in July.
But I do believe it will not become 'U' in July. Maybe in August and September it will become 'U'.
But I do believe it will not become 'U' in July. Maybe in August and September it will become 'U'.
dresses +vat. Year
psoft27
07-25 03:55 PM
Hello IV.org - I am on H1visa, which is valid until Sep 30th 2010 with stamping. To get eligible for a new 6year H1visa - Can I work for the same company but geographically located out side of USA for one complete year. [ Let's assume from Oct 1st 2010 to Sep 30th 2011]
Then apply for the new H1 from the same company in april 2012? OR can I apply in april 2011 and enter US at Oct 2011?
Thank you.
Then apply for the new H1 from the same company in april 2012? OR can I apply in april 2011 and enter US at Oct 2011?
Thank you.
more...
makeup calendar-2011-uk-with-week
srox
03-03 08:59 PM
Hi all...
i'm Srox from malaysia...n this is myself , sketches in 10 minutes using wacom :)
http://img.skitch.com/20090304-8t1fcc56mnpjd31gwce7js27q2.jpg
Happy voting!
i'm Srox from malaysia...n this is myself , sketches in 10 minutes using wacom :)
http://img.skitch.com/20090304-8t1fcc56mnpjd31gwce7js27q2.jpg
Happy voting!
girlfriend The economic calendar for the
crystal
02-07 04:05 PM
By law they are supposed to approve EAD in 90 days.
There is no such restriction on AP. So USCIS takes its own time.
There is no such restriction on AP. So USCIS takes its own time.
hairstyles Christmas Day), calendar
ricky26
04-07 04:04 PM
If you have receipt # you can check the status on uscis.gov, you can also call their 1-800 # to check what's going on with this application.
Blog Feeds
04-29 04:00 PM
Some of you may know that I've been a co-author of the annually published LexisNexis' J-1 Visa Guidebook for the last dozen years. J-1 visas are used by a variety of folks including students and researchers training in a lot of fields. For many decades, J-1s from developing countries have been required to comply with a requirement to return to their home countries for two years following their J-1 time in the US. The idea is that the J-1 program is a part of the US foreign aid system and the two year requirement is a way to ensure that...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/04/why-is-state-department-using-immigration-policy-to-provide-foreign-aid-to-china.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/04/why-is-state-department-using-immigration-policy-to-provide-foreign-aid-to-china.html)
Blog Feeds
05-17 12:40 PM
The Arizona Republic reports that US bid to host the 2018 World Cup may be jeopardized by plans to include the University of Phoenix Stadium as one of the venues. This quote from the story caught my attention: 'We've got 18 cities that are part of the bid, and it's a long way between now and 2018 or 2022,' U.S. Soccer Federation president Sunil Gulati said last week when asked if Arizona wouldn't be included in the bid. 'At this point I think it'd be premature to make any decisions given the fact that the law is being challenged in...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/arizona-immigration-law-could-cost-us-world-cup.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/arizona-immigration-law-could-cost-us-world-cup.html)
No comments:
Post a Comment