Blog Feeds
06-09 02:10 PM
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_85n-DBh_hhCMWvvAw2ZzshO4GyFwfbxEdFJwT5pbLP6a_yf-tWpeOIxJldw9Eoi8NeFQaeehdxKyY53BsIVT5foscfJnyfMx43o9cRXA0Tj6diKZZPQHwxuKlfSkG3-7auHhfftweDFE/s200/abacus.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_85n-DBh_hhCMWvvAw2ZzshO4GyFwfbxEdFJwT5pbLP6a_yf-tWpeOIxJldw9Eoi8NeFQaeehdxKyY53BsIVT5foscfJnyfMx43o9cRXA0Tj6diKZZPQHwxuKlfSkG3-7auHhfftweDFE/s1600-h/abacus.jpg)
USCIS updated the H-1B cap count for Fiscal Year 2010. It now has 45,700 cases against the regular (non-Master's) H-1B cap. For more information, see the previous blog posts here (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/04/h-1b-count-now-at-44000.html)and here (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/04/h-1b-cap-may-not-have-been-reached-yet.html)
http://immigrationvoice.org//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-5975583509495150782?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/h-1b-cap-count-update-45700-now-used.html)
USCIS updated the H-1B cap count for Fiscal Year 2010. It now has 45,700 cases against the regular (non-Master's) H-1B cap. For more information, see the previous blog posts here (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/04/h-1b-count-now-at-44000.html)and here (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/04/h-1b-cap-may-not-have-been-reached-yet.html)
http://immigrationvoice.org//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-5975583509495150782?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/h-1b-cap-count-update-45700-now-used.html)
wallpaper hot curly prom hairstyles long
nmdial
03-31 12:13 PM
I initially voted in favour of this, but on further reflection, I think this is bad policy and urge others to not support this.
Giving I-485 benefits to people without current PDs is a bad idea. It creates a class of immigrants who are neither non-immigrant visa holders (h1b) nor are they lawful permanent residents (i-551) with a set of rights that falls into neither category. The AoS pending status is intended as a short-duration temporary "gap" coverage for people who are a matter of months from having actual I-551 rights.
Essentially, this proposal aims to make every month into the July 2007 fiasco. In addition, and this is the truly horrible part of it, relieves US employers of the pressure and costs they feel now, extending H1Bs every 3 years. That means that the only allies that legal EB immigrants have (US Employers who require their services) are detached from the immigrants themselves...they no longer have a dog in the hunt, and will stop whatever pressure they are bringing to bear now upon Congresscritters and Senators to increase the number of EB visas available.
Disconnecting the interests of foreign-national employees from their US employers will weaken the political position of the foreign-national employees. We cannot vote or contribute to campaigns, our employers however, can do both. If employees are shifted to EADs and APs, with no further involvement of employers in their immigration status needed, then those employers become disconnected from the process, and the one and only ally the legal immigrant has is no longer interested. That's a horrible thing for the immigrant to advocate.
I strongly urge IV to back away from this proposal, as it is not in the long-term interests of the EB Immigrant community. I urge IV to instead focus their resources on items that will help immigrants long term, like increasing the number of EB visas available through initiatives like eliminating the DV program and allocating the visas to EB applicants.
Thanks for your insight. This is another perspective and it demands further discussion and analysis. The wait time between filing I-485 and receiving the green card is already beyond the norm and a lot of companies are aware of this. Imagine the wait times for the people who haven't yet been able to file for their Adjustment of Status. Wouldn't it help them (and their dependents) if they are at least allowed to file for their AOS? I invite the members to provide their perspectives on the issues raised by JeffDG above. Please do not attack each other. Let us fight together in lieu of fighting each other..
Giving I-485 benefits to people without current PDs is a bad idea. It creates a class of immigrants who are neither non-immigrant visa holders (h1b) nor are they lawful permanent residents (i-551) with a set of rights that falls into neither category. The AoS pending status is intended as a short-duration temporary "gap" coverage for people who are a matter of months from having actual I-551 rights.
Essentially, this proposal aims to make every month into the July 2007 fiasco. In addition, and this is the truly horrible part of it, relieves US employers of the pressure and costs they feel now, extending H1Bs every 3 years. That means that the only allies that legal EB immigrants have (US Employers who require their services) are detached from the immigrants themselves...they no longer have a dog in the hunt, and will stop whatever pressure they are bringing to bear now upon Congresscritters and Senators to increase the number of EB visas available.
Disconnecting the interests of foreign-national employees from their US employers will weaken the political position of the foreign-national employees. We cannot vote or contribute to campaigns, our employers however, can do both. If employees are shifted to EADs and APs, with no further involvement of employers in their immigration status needed, then those employers become disconnected from the process, and the one and only ally the legal immigrant has is no longer interested. That's a horrible thing for the immigrant to advocate.
I strongly urge IV to back away from this proposal, as it is not in the long-term interests of the EB Immigrant community. I urge IV to instead focus their resources on items that will help immigrants long term, like increasing the number of EB visas available through initiatives like eliminating the DV program and allocating the visas to EB applicants.
Thanks for your insight. This is another perspective and it demands further discussion and analysis. The wait time between filing I-485 and receiving the green card is already beyond the norm and a lot of companies are aware of this. Imagine the wait times for the people who haven't yet been able to file for their Adjustment of Status. Wouldn't it help them (and their dependents) if they are at least allowed to file for their AOS? I invite the members to provide their perspectives on the issues raised by JeffDG above. Please do not attack each other. Let us fight together in lieu of fighting each other..
vallikarthik
07-14 01:34 PM
I and my wife are on h1. I want to come on her h4. She recently applied for h1 extension as her employer is nonprofit org and has some policies of his own, he files every year. She filled in may�09 and got receipt number, as the case is still pending who we can apply for h4 now. Is there any way around to apply for my h4 while the case is still pending?
2011 long wavy hairstyles; long
AgentM
08-03 06:14 PM
Hi,
I filed my I-485 application with vermont and I live in WA, according to the instruction form , I765 should be sent to Nebraska
1. Where should I send the paper filing for EAD ot Nebraska or Vermont.
2. Should I make the check payable to USCIS or Department of Homeland security.
Pls help.
thank you.
I filed my I-485 application with vermont and I live in WA, according to the instruction form , I765 should be sent to Nebraska
1. Where should I send the paper filing for EAD ot Nebraska or Vermont.
2. Should I make the check payable to USCIS or Department of Homeland security.
Pls help.
thank you.
more...
vsuri
11-19 11:59 PM
Contact USCIS at: (800) 375 - 5283.
admin
04-07 12:31 PM
no news yet, i m kinda breaking ........
See here - http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=521
See here - http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=521
more...
StuckInTheMuck
02-15 02:48 PM
Folks,
I hate to start another thread, but judging by the number of separate threads on I-485 interviews, I thought if it makes better sense to have a common pool where we can ask questions and share experiences on these (supposedly) tense faceoffs. Our lawyers often charge a fat fee to babysit us at these interviews (I'll have to shell out $1000+travel costs for each such trip of my lawyer, a decent bloke otherwise). So it will be nice to know a little bit about these meetings (documents they ask you to bring along, questions they ask, how they behave etc.), that is, if we really need such expensive nannying, or can handle them by ourselves. So, please add your question/experience.
Thanks.
I hate to start another thread, but judging by the number of separate threads on I-485 interviews, I thought if it makes better sense to have a common pool where we can ask questions and share experiences on these (supposedly) tense faceoffs. Our lawyers often charge a fat fee to babysit us at these interviews (I'll have to shell out $1000+travel costs for each such trip of my lawyer, a decent bloke otherwise). So it will be nice to know a little bit about these meetings (documents they ask you to bring along, questions they ask, how they behave etc.), that is, if we really need such expensive nannying, or can handle them by ourselves. So, please add your question/experience.
Thanks.
2010 Long Curly Hairstyles for Prom
vikramark
10-18 08:34 AM
Hello,
Online Status for my EAD application says, RFE has been sent.....
What kind of RFE do we get on EAD?
140 Approved on 10/06/06
485/765/131 RD 07/31/07
485/765/131 ND 10/11/07
Approvals:??????
Online Status for my EAD application says, RFE has been sent.....
What kind of RFE do we get on EAD?
140 Approved on 10/06/06
485/765/131 RD 07/31/07
485/765/131 ND 10/11/07
Approvals:??????
more...
aknynd
07-21 11:49 AM
Hi,
Does anyone know whats going at Mumbai Consulate ? They generally publish the list of Consular Processing (CP) Interviews by 15th and this time no news. Delhi and Chennai have come up with their lists.
Does anyone know whats going at Mumbai Consulate ? They generally publish the list of Consular Processing (CP) Interviews by 15th and this time no news. Delhi and Chennai have come up with their lists.
hair curly prom hairstyles for long
shreekhand
08-08 04:59 PM
You are ok. As per the USCIS FAQ they would not penalize you on that and your appl. will get accepted if otherwise OK.
My attorney sent my I-485 at Nebraska center because my I-140 was pending at Nebraska but according to question # 38 on FAQ-3, it should have gone to TX based on June 22, 2007 direct filing directives. Should I file again at Texas center?
My attorney sent my I-485 at Nebraska center because my I-140 was pending at Nebraska but according to question # 38 on FAQ-3, it should have gone to TX based on June 22, 2007 direct filing directives. Should I file again at Texas center?
more...
Blog Feeds
07-10 08:40 AM
Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (yes, there is such a group and, yes, it makes perfect sense for true, small government conservatives), had a strategy call this week. Here's a key comment from the call: Congressman Lincoln Diaz Balart stated, �We�re ready in the House�There is a variety of thinking in both parties on this issue. Republicans have backed off in the Senate. They have not backed off in the House.� His brother, Congressman Mario Diaz Balart continued, �This issue is, how do we get it done? Where we are today. Obama said that in his first 12 months he...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/republican-house-members-were-ready-to-pass-immigration-reform.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/republican-house-members-were-ready-to-pass-immigration-reform.html)
hot curly prom hairstyles long hair. prom hairstyles long curly
rolrblade
03-06 10:19 AM
Hi,
I am currently doing my MBA here on a H4 visa. I want to know if I would be eligible to apply for the H1 Visa ( in the 20,000 quota) without converting to
F1 status. Please advise.
Thanks in advance...
You woulkd be eligible provided you have completed your MBA. If you are still working on it then you would not be considered an advanced Degree HOLDER.
I am currently doing my MBA here on a H4 visa. I want to know if I would be eligible to apply for the H1 Visa ( in the 20,000 quota) without converting to
F1 status. Please advise.
Thanks in advance...
You woulkd be eligible provided you have completed your MBA. If you are still working on it then you would not be considered an advanced Degree HOLDER.
more...
house Long Hair Styles For Women
gcformeornot
04-23 09:34 AM
what are the security checks involved with the green card process, and when do they come up?
up sometimes during 140 stage(security). But 100% during 485 stage.
The check I know is called "Name Check" done at 485 stage.
up sometimes during 140 stage(security). But 100% during 485 stage.
The check I know is called "Name Check" done at 485 stage.
tattoo curly prom hairstyles Curly
Blog Feeds
05-05 06:50 AM
My friend John Lamb is an in house corporate lawyer by day and an immigration reform activist in his spare time. Maybe the fact that he's outside the immigration law world gives him some room for thinking outside the box since he's often coming up with creative approaches to changing immigration law. A few months back I wrote about his idea for a "Friends Visa." The idea was largely incorporated in to a bill proposed in Utah recently. Now John has another idea. He would create a program that would allow every person who voluntarily self-deports and stays out of...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/05/the-sacrifice-bunt-visa.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/05/the-sacrifice-bunt-visa.html)
more...
pictures curly prom hairstyles long
mrdelhiite
08-09 02:37 PM
I have a quick question. Should I go ahead and apply for my wife's I131 – Advanced payroll too with her 485/EAD. The way I understand 485/EAD/AP is as soon as she gets her EAD, she would want to work and in that case it would be recommended to have a AP too. People suggest that AP should/can be applied later on but I do not see any benefit in saving 6 months/170$.
Also let me add that my wife will be in US from August 10th to August 26th and then November 10th. As you have to be in country till AP approval should i defer applying her AP now. She is currently on H4.
Please suggest.
Thank you for your time
-M :confused:
Also let me add that my wife will be in US from August 10th to August 26th and then November 10th. As you have to be in country till AP approval should i defer applying her AP now. She is currently on H4.
Please suggest.
Thank you for your time
-M :confused:
dresses Prom Hair Styles For Long Hair
stefanv
07-23 07:54 AM
Sorry but I couldn't help it...
Hope this doesnt get me banned :)
http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/9330/appleflash.jpg
Spread the word!
Hope this doesnt get me banned :)
http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/9330/appleflash.jpg
Spread the word!
more...
makeup prom hairstyles for long curly
kirupa
07-14 04:13 AM
Added! :)
girlfriend prom hairstyles for long curly
mrsub
08-27 03:34 PM
My priority date is in 10/2006 under EB3. My wife just start her GC process under EB2. Can my wife port my PD date to her GC application?
Thanks!
Thanks!
hairstyles pictures prom hairstyles long
Macaca
05-25 08:10 PM
Making History, Reluctantly (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402069.html) In a Hill Anomaly, Pelosi Shepherds Iraq Bill She Opposes, By Jonathan Weisman (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jonathan+weisman/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, May 25, 2007
In public, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had done nothing to suppress her frustration as she assented to funding the Iraq war without a deadline to end it. But behind closed doors Wednesday night, she was all business.
With its members gathered in her office, she told the House's "Progressive Caucus" that she would vote against the war funding bill, but that she also had no choice but to facilitate its passage. Funds were running out for the troops, and she had promised to protect them. The Memorial Day break loomed, and without the money President Bush would have a week to hammer her party for taking a vacation while the Pentagon scrambled to keep its soldiers fed.
Was she agonized over the situation? Sure, said Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.), who attended the meeting. But "we all feel that way," he added. "I feel that way, too. Are we going to just walk away now, or are we going to continue this process, to keep the pressure on?"
Yesterday's vote to fund the war through September was a historical rarity: the passage of a bill opposed by the speaker of the House and a majority of the speaker's party.
Two years ago to the day, then-Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) violated the "Hastert rule" -- that only bills supported by a majority of the majority can come up -- by bringing up legislation to allow federal funding for stem cell research. The majority of the Republican majority opposed the law. He voted against it, but he knew it would never become law over President Bush's signature.
Over his objections and the opposition of most Republicans, Hastert did allow passage of campaign finance reform in 2002, but only because a petition drive was about to force the bill to the floor. The North American Free Trade Agreement passed in 1993, over the objections of most Democrats, who were then in the majority. But NAFTA did have the support of then-Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), as well as the Democratic president, Bill Clinton.
In contrast, the Iraq funding bill was not only opposed by the majority of House Democrats, it was also ardently opposed by the speaker and even the lawmaker who drafted it, Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.). And it is destined to become law.
"We don't relish bringing a package to the floor that we're not going to vote for," Obey conceded before last night's vote.
Pelosi's agonized decision put her in the company of Foley, who in 1991 brought to the floor the resolution authorizing the Persian Gulf War and then voted against it, and Thomas Brackett Reed, a speaker in the 1890s who voted against the annexation of Hawaii, and then against the Spanish-American War, but allowed both to go forward.
"To have the chairman and the speaker vote against a bill like this, I've never heard of it," Hastert said.
But while protesters outside the Capitol condemned what they saw as a capitulation, Democrats inside were remarkably understanding of their speaker's contortions.
Party leaders jury-rigged the votes yesterday to give all Democrats something to brag about. A parliamentary vote to bring the Iraq funding legislation to the floor included language demanding a showdown vote in September over further funding. A second vote allowed Democrats to vote in favor of funds for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery, agricultural drought relief and children's health insurance. Finally, the House got around to funding the war.
Republicans cried foul over what they saw as an abuse of the legislative system, but Democrats saw brilliance in the legerdemain. And with such contortions came more appreciation for the efforts Pelosi was making to fund the war in a fashion most palatable to angry Democrats.
"It was the responsible thing to do, and she's a responsible speaker," said Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.), who is personally close to Pelosi. "You can't just walk away."
In public, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had done nothing to suppress her frustration as she assented to funding the Iraq war without a deadline to end it. But behind closed doors Wednesday night, she was all business.
With its members gathered in her office, she told the House's "Progressive Caucus" that she would vote against the war funding bill, but that she also had no choice but to facilitate its passage. Funds were running out for the troops, and she had promised to protect them. The Memorial Day break loomed, and without the money President Bush would have a week to hammer her party for taking a vacation while the Pentagon scrambled to keep its soldiers fed.
Was she agonized over the situation? Sure, said Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.), who attended the meeting. But "we all feel that way," he added. "I feel that way, too. Are we going to just walk away now, or are we going to continue this process, to keep the pressure on?"
Yesterday's vote to fund the war through September was a historical rarity: the passage of a bill opposed by the speaker of the House and a majority of the speaker's party.
Two years ago to the day, then-Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) violated the "Hastert rule" -- that only bills supported by a majority of the majority can come up -- by bringing up legislation to allow federal funding for stem cell research. The majority of the Republican majority opposed the law. He voted against it, but he knew it would never become law over President Bush's signature.
Over his objections and the opposition of most Republicans, Hastert did allow passage of campaign finance reform in 2002, but only because a petition drive was about to force the bill to the floor. The North American Free Trade Agreement passed in 1993, over the objections of most Democrats, who were then in the majority. But NAFTA did have the support of then-Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), as well as the Democratic president, Bill Clinton.
In contrast, the Iraq funding bill was not only opposed by the majority of House Democrats, it was also ardently opposed by the speaker and even the lawmaker who drafted it, Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.). And it is destined to become law.
"We don't relish bringing a package to the floor that we're not going to vote for," Obey conceded before last night's vote.
Pelosi's agonized decision put her in the company of Foley, who in 1991 brought to the floor the resolution authorizing the Persian Gulf War and then voted against it, and Thomas Brackett Reed, a speaker in the 1890s who voted against the annexation of Hawaii, and then against the Spanish-American War, but allowed both to go forward.
"To have the chairman and the speaker vote against a bill like this, I've never heard of it," Hastert said.
But while protesters outside the Capitol condemned what they saw as a capitulation, Democrats inside were remarkably understanding of their speaker's contortions.
Party leaders jury-rigged the votes yesterday to give all Democrats something to brag about. A parliamentary vote to bring the Iraq funding legislation to the floor included language demanding a showdown vote in September over further funding. A second vote allowed Democrats to vote in favor of funds for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery, agricultural drought relief and children's health insurance. Finally, the House got around to funding the war.
Republicans cried foul over what they saw as an abuse of the legislative system, but Democrats saw brilliance in the legerdemain. And with such contortions came more appreciation for the efforts Pelosi was making to fund the war in a fashion most palatable to angry Democrats.
"It was the responsible thing to do, and she's a responsible speaker," said Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.), who is personally close to Pelosi. "You can't just walk away."
hsadan
10-11 10:31 AM
well ya..i guess u could say that i want to twist an object
say like make a spiral-staircase-like object? (well not the stairs but u should know what i mean)
say like make a spiral-staircase-like object? (well not the stairs but u should know what i mean)
supers789
01-24 11:11 AM
My previous employer filed EB2 labor for me. I left the job after getting 140 approved so that I will hold the priority date.
The new employer, as per their policy is planning to file labor application in EB3 category and NOT in EB2 category.
My question is, the way I post PD from old approved 140, do I port the EB2 category also? ie will my PD get compared with EB2 PD or EB3 PD when it comes to filing 485?
Thanks.
The new employer, as per their policy is planning to file labor application in EB3 category and NOT in EB2 category.
My question is, the way I post PD from old approved 140, do I port the EB2 category also? ie will my PD get compared with EB2 PD or EB3 PD when it comes to filing 485?
Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment