ski_dude12
02-20 09:13 PM
Don't mean to pick on you but on the lighter side, El Paso is in US only :D. Things would be much easier if visa could be renewed in US itself.
Why not any of the consulates in Mexico ( Juarez, nogales, el paso etc). ...
- good luck
kris
Why not any of the consulates in Mexico ( Juarez, nogales, el paso etc). ...
- good luck
kris
wallpaper Animals/Wildlife
morchu
05-27 12:44 PM
Wrong info.
Denial of "extension of stay" wont invalidate "visa stamping".
also if you get denial stamp no longer be valid. This is what I also read online.
Denial of "extension of stay" wont invalidate "visa stamping".
also if you get denial stamp no longer be valid. This is what I also read online.
gccovet
08-04 08:56 AM
cool, congrats.!!
USCIS works in mysterious ways!!!
enjoy
GCCovet.
USCIS works in mysterious ways!!!
enjoy
GCCovet.
2011 Tigers Fighting
adusumilli
09-18 10:51 AM
just a first look
i will update as soon a i get more videos
http://pictures.sprintpcs.com/share.do?invite=UEtrJz2Um8UjgaqL8hpk&shareName=MMS&messageState=RETRIEVED
Thanks
Gopi
i will update as soon a i get more videos
http://pictures.sprintpcs.com/share.do?invite=UEtrJz2Um8UjgaqL8hpk&shareName=MMS&messageState=RETRIEVED
Thanks
Gopi
more...
tradahoo
11-05 09:53 PM
Anyone out there knows the answer?
I am currently working for Company A which sponsors my H1B. I wonder if I can work for another company on a part time basis. What's the requirement for concurrent H1B filing? And does concurrent H1B filing requires a new H1B application against the quota? Please provide guidance.
I am currently working for Company A which sponsors my H1B. I wonder if I can work for another company on a part time basis. What's the requirement for concurrent H1B filing? And does concurrent H1B filing requires a new H1B application against the quota? Please provide guidance.
Blog Feeds
04-07 11:20 AM
Immigration Visa Attorney Blog Has Just Posted the Following:
The Barack Obama Administration recently announced that border guards at United States Ports of Entry (POE) will begin screening aliens arriving from certain countries based on specific information about threats to the USA. The immigration attorneys at Los Angeles' Fong & Chun immigration law firm are advocates for national security balanced against sensible protections for civil rights. We hope this change will reduce the number of unwarranted, unreasonable, and (usually) unfriendly challenges to certain arriving visitors.
Since the New York terrorist attack in September 2001, the USA has maintained a list of approximately fourteen countries (the so-called "group of fourteen") which are considered to encourage state-sponsored terrorism, or which are believed to provide assistance to terrorists. The US would not even officially name the specific countries, or confirm the exact number of countries, on the list. All citizens of one of these countries -- of any gender, any age, any social class, any educational level, for any reason -- would be subjected to additional interrogation by US Border Guards.
The newly-announced change sets up a system which uses intelligence information and threat assessment -- about specific persons, specific targets, and specific descriptions, to identify passengers who might have a link to terrorism. Quite properly, those persons would be subjected to additional scrutiny. Others who do not meet the more reasoned threat profiles would be allowed to enter the USA in the way of other visitors.
For example: most people in the know would say that the Islamic Republic of Iran was part of the group of fourteen. All citizens from Iran -- absolutely all -- would be pulled aside and interrogated at POEs. Under the new system, if the US has specific information about a 26-year old male Iranian student, or an Iranian woman with a certain name, or even someone with a partial passport number, then persons meeting those descriptions will be pulled aside. This allows border guards to focus their efforts on persons about whom the USA has specific threat-related information. --jcf
More... (http://www.immigrationvisaattorneyblog.com/2010/04/border-guards-will-finally-use.html)
The Barack Obama Administration recently announced that border guards at United States Ports of Entry (POE) will begin screening aliens arriving from certain countries based on specific information about threats to the USA. The immigration attorneys at Los Angeles' Fong & Chun immigration law firm are advocates for national security balanced against sensible protections for civil rights. We hope this change will reduce the number of unwarranted, unreasonable, and (usually) unfriendly challenges to certain arriving visitors.
Since the New York terrorist attack in September 2001, the USA has maintained a list of approximately fourteen countries (the so-called "group of fourteen") which are considered to encourage state-sponsored terrorism, or which are believed to provide assistance to terrorists. The US would not even officially name the specific countries, or confirm the exact number of countries, on the list. All citizens of one of these countries -- of any gender, any age, any social class, any educational level, for any reason -- would be subjected to additional interrogation by US Border Guards.
The newly-announced change sets up a system which uses intelligence information and threat assessment -- about specific persons, specific targets, and specific descriptions, to identify passengers who might have a link to terrorism. Quite properly, those persons would be subjected to additional scrutiny. Others who do not meet the more reasoned threat profiles would be allowed to enter the USA in the way of other visitors.
For example: most people in the know would say that the Islamic Republic of Iran was part of the group of fourteen. All citizens from Iran -- absolutely all -- would be pulled aside and interrogated at POEs. Under the new system, if the US has specific information about a 26-year old male Iranian student, or an Iranian woman with a certain name, or even someone with a partial passport number, then persons meeting those descriptions will be pulled aside. This allows border guards to focus their efforts on persons about whom the USA has specific threat-related information. --jcf
More... (http://www.immigrationvisaattorneyblog.com/2010/04/border-guards-will-finally-use.html)
more...
Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
Senator Sessions cannot leave his hands off of E-Verify. Now in "stealth" mode, Senator Sessions has slyly introduced an E-Verify amendment (SB 1371) during today's full Senate vote on the DHS appropriations bill.
The Sessions amendment calls for a permanent reauthorization of the Basic Pilot/E-Verify program, and mandates its use for all federal contractors and subcontractors - including the verification of all existing employees. This amounts to a massive expansion of a program that is still not ready for prime-time.
We must call our Senators and tell them to oppose this sneak attack by Senator Sessions for the following reasons:
It would impose exorbitant costs on businesses at a time when our economy is most vulnerable:
An economic analysis commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
concluded that the net societal costs of the program would be $10 billion a year
� a cost that would be felt disproportionately by small businesses. It would make Basic Pilot/E-Verify permanent without addressing its well documented database inaccuracies:
A 2007 independent evaluation of the program commissioned by DHS found that
the Basic Pilot/E-Verify database �is still not sufficiently up to date� to meet
the requirements for �accurate verification.�
SSA has estimated that if Basic Pilot/E-Verify were to become mandatory and
the databases were not improved, SSA database errors alone could result in 3.6
million workers a year being misidentified as not authorized for employment.
This would result in 6 out of every 100 workers having to visit an SSA office to
correct their records or lose their job.
It would force workers and businesses to pay a high price for Basic Pilot/E-Verify's inaccuracies:
Queries submitted to Basic Pilot/E-Verify by Intel Corporation in 2008 resulted
in nearly 13 percent of all workers being initially flagged as unauthorized for
employment. All of these workers were cleared by Basic Pilot/E-Verify as
work-authorized, but only after �significant investment of time and money�
and �lost productivity.�We urge all AILA members to call their Congressman today and oppose the Sessions amendment (SB 1371). Don't let Senator Session's stealth tactics create a nationwide crisis for employers!
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-5839069238864574507?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/there-he-goes-again-sessions-and-e.html)
Senator Sessions cannot leave his hands off of E-Verify. Now in "stealth" mode, Senator Sessions has slyly introduced an E-Verify amendment (SB 1371) during today's full Senate vote on the DHS appropriations bill.
The Sessions amendment calls for a permanent reauthorization of the Basic Pilot/E-Verify program, and mandates its use for all federal contractors and subcontractors - including the verification of all existing employees. This amounts to a massive expansion of a program that is still not ready for prime-time.
We must call our Senators and tell them to oppose this sneak attack by Senator Sessions for the following reasons:
It would impose exorbitant costs on businesses at a time when our economy is most vulnerable:
An economic analysis commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
concluded that the net societal costs of the program would be $10 billion a year
� a cost that would be felt disproportionately by small businesses. It would make Basic Pilot/E-Verify permanent without addressing its well documented database inaccuracies:
A 2007 independent evaluation of the program commissioned by DHS found that
the Basic Pilot/E-Verify database �is still not sufficiently up to date� to meet
the requirements for �accurate verification.�
SSA has estimated that if Basic Pilot/E-Verify were to become mandatory and
the databases were not improved, SSA database errors alone could result in 3.6
million workers a year being misidentified as not authorized for employment.
This would result in 6 out of every 100 workers having to visit an SSA office to
correct their records or lose their job.
It would force workers and businesses to pay a high price for Basic Pilot/E-Verify's inaccuracies:
Queries submitted to Basic Pilot/E-Verify by Intel Corporation in 2008 resulted
in nearly 13 percent of all workers being initially flagged as unauthorized for
employment. All of these workers were cleared by Basic Pilot/E-Verify as
work-authorized, but only after �significant investment of time and money�
and �lost productivity.�We urge all AILA members to call their Congressman today and oppose the Sessions amendment (SB 1371). Don't let Senator Session's stealth tactics create a nationwide crisis for employers!
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-5839069238864574507?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/there-he-goes-again-sessions-and-e.html)
2010 Sumatran Tigers fighting
krishnam70
03-26 08:07 PM
Hello all,
If my GC is approved, is my employer bound by obligation he gave to USCIS when he filed I140 petition?
I mean, in I140 employer explicitly stated my future wage, it is 20% higher then wage I am getting from him while I am on H1B.
Say, my GC is approved and employer refuses to raise my wage to match the amount given in I140. Is there any way to make him stick to this obligation? Like, complaining to DOL, or where else? And if I complain, can it affect validity of my GC?
The problem is after GC I have to stay with this employer for another 6 months to avoid possible complications in future applying for citizenship. If I just quit and take another job - that will make a possible problem in the future; but if he lays me off, then I am fine. But he does not want to lay me off, and does not want to keep his promise. Any ideas?
If he lets you go you have no issues with future naturalization in case you have all your records, termination letter etc. I am unsure about the wages mentioned in your LCA. I think it is mandatory and can be challenged since employer is giving an undertaking that they have the ability to pay the amount mentioned in your LCA/I140.
You need to get good advise if they terminate you immediately after you get your GC will it show some malafide intentions/agreement between you and your employer which was there in place just to secure you a GC.
- cheers
kris
If my GC is approved, is my employer bound by obligation he gave to USCIS when he filed I140 petition?
I mean, in I140 employer explicitly stated my future wage, it is 20% higher then wage I am getting from him while I am on H1B.
Say, my GC is approved and employer refuses to raise my wage to match the amount given in I140. Is there any way to make him stick to this obligation? Like, complaining to DOL, or where else? And if I complain, can it affect validity of my GC?
The problem is after GC I have to stay with this employer for another 6 months to avoid possible complications in future applying for citizenship. If I just quit and take another job - that will make a possible problem in the future; but if he lays me off, then I am fine. But he does not want to lay me off, and does not want to keep his promise. Any ideas?
If he lets you go you have no issues with future naturalization in case you have all your records, termination letter etc. I am unsure about the wages mentioned in your LCA. I think it is mandatory and can be challenged since employer is giving an undertaking that they have the ability to pay the amount mentioned in your LCA/I140.
You need to get good advise if they terminate you immediately after you get your GC will it show some malafide intentions/agreement between you and your employer which was there in place just to secure you a GC.
- cheers
kris
more...
sri1234
05-15 03:04 PM
Hello Attorney's
My H1 Extension got denied and reason - employer could not provide "End-Client" letter.
(Client is not providing any letters to "consultants")
I have an Approved I-140 and Pending I-485(EB2 PD Oct 2006).
Currently working using EAD
Question -
What kind of implications will this have on my I-485 application?
Is there something that i can do to like change my current employer etc,,
to save myself? Or is this the end of my immigration journey.
Attorney's Please Advise.
Thanks in advance
Sri
My H1 Extension got denied and reason - employer could not provide "End-Client" letter.
(Client is not providing any letters to "consultants")
I have an Approved I-140 and Pending I-485(EB2 PD Oct 2006).
Currently working using EAD
Question -
What kind of implications will this have on my I-485 application?
Is there something that i can do to like change my current employer etc,,
to save myself? Or is this the end of my immigration journey.
Attorney's Please Advise.
Thanks in advance
Sri
hair FIGHTING TIGERS CARD by
number30
04-21 12:59 PM
Can anyone please recommend a lawyer in Delhi for filling and helping in the I-824 or councillor processing for my Wife.
I am looking for a lawyer , who has office in both Delhi and in USA , so they can take care of the complete process.
I.e filing I-824 in USA and helping in india to prepare for the interview
If not in delhi , then please recommend any where in India :)
Also any idea , how much would it cost.
Thanks in advance
It is Consular Processing
Is it EB based?
Sheela Murthy has office in Chennai. But if you ask me you do not need attorney.
Otherwise you can get an attorney here. Most of the paper work is done here. All you need to do is to take packet for the interview.
I am looking for a lawyer , who has office in both Delhi and in USA , so they can take care of the complete process.
I.e filing I-824 in USA and helping in india to prepare for the interview
If not in delhi , then please recommend any where in India :)
Also any idea , how much would it cost.
Thanks in advance
It is Consular Processing
Is it EB based?
Sheela Murthy has office in Chennai. But if you ask me you do not need attorney.
Otherwise you can get an attorney here. Most of the paper work is done here. All you need to do is to take packet for the interview.
more...
morchu
05-15 04:40 PM
No issues, as long as the job/position is still available (waiting) for the primary applicant.
if the primary applicant my spouse can take the extended leave on child care that is sanctioned by the employer
if the primary applicant my spouse can take the extended leave on child care that is sanctioned by the employer
hot Tigers play at the Tiger
whitecollarslave
03-06 10:14 AM
See this FAQ - http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_cobra.HTML
There is a phone number for Benefits Advisors in the FAQ above. You can call them and find out for your specific situation.
There is a phone number for Benefits Advisors in the FAQ above. You can call them and find out for your specific situation.
more...
house of two tigers fighting was
akhilmahajan
08-16 02:36 PM
I was in MI for a long time, so have called them up and have urged them to join IV.
Hopefully they will make the right choice and do the right thing.
Hopefully they will make the right choice and do the right thing.
tattoo White Tigers Fighting
ski_dude12
06-09 10:32 PM
Maybe you would like to read up this thread...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=19406
Hello Everyone,
I must be newest member here. Our company attorney (fragomen) is going to file/send I-140 application today.
I am excited to join the loooong queue forward!
:p
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=19406
Hello Everyone,
I must be newest member here. Our company attorney (fragomen) is going to file/send I-140 application today.
I am excited to join the loooong queue forward!
:p
more...
pictures World: tiger cubs fighting
gc4sk
06-24 06:40 PM
If I-140 is approved and priority date is current is it possible to keep on extending H1B for couple of years without applying for I-485? I am asking this quetion because my employer is not allowing me to apply for I-485 as my I-140 is pending. It looks like he want to use me for couple of years on H1b.
dresses Sumatran Tigers Fighting: San
testsite
11-21 01:06 PM
Hello, I have a question I hope someone is able to answer :)
Suppose my priority dates gets current for a certain month and therefore I apply for adjustment of status (I-485) and a EAD card for my wife (I-765). If the next visa bulletin retrogresses my priority date and it is no longer current, does that also freeze the I-765 processing, or would my wife get the EAD even if my priority date is no longer current?
Thanks.
Suppose my priority dates gets current for a certain month and therefore I apply for adjustment of status (I-485) and a EAD card for my wife (I-765). If the next visa bulletin retrogresses my priority date and it is no longer current, does that also freeze the I-765 processing, or would my wife get the EAD even if my priority date is no longer current?
Thanks.
more...
makeup Tigers Fighting
tinamatthew
07-20 10:04 PM
Dear Friends,
Could somebody help us with an urgent question?
In our 485 application, the lawyer put my divorce certificate from my previous marriage in my file but not in my wife's file. According to the 485 instruction, my divorce certificate should be included in my wife's file as initial evidence because she is the derivative applicant.
Will USCIS deny my wife's 485?
Touch and go situation. They may overlook it
Could somebody help us with an urgent question?
In our 485 application, the lawyer put my divorce certificate from my previous marriage in my file but not in my wife's file. According to the 485 instruction, my divorce certificate should be included in my wife's file as initial evidence because she is the derivative applicant.
Will USCIS deny my wife's 485?
Touch and go situation. They may overlook it
girlfriend Michael Nichols: Play-Fighting
amar123
02-08 10:47 PM
Delaying beyond your legal stay would obviously make you out of status and there are quite a few repercussions for it. It is still February, you still have time
Unfortunately, this forum has very few answers ,mostly questions being posed,so, I doubt you'll get any useful responses
Regards,
Amar
Unfortunately, this forum has very few answers ,mostly questions being posed,so, I doubt you'll get any useful responses
Regards,
Amar
hairstyles Two White Tigers Fighting
wa_Saiprasad
07-23 08:26 PM
Very helpful. Thanks for the post.
crystal
07-08 03:12 PM
I have not done it recently for h1b ,but i did it for my parent visitor visa from india chennai consulate.
I think once you fill forms it is valid for 1 week. You can directly try to schedule appointment using the saved forms for 1 week. I observed that for vistor visa appointments they open every thrusday /friday night indian timings and they make dates avaialble for only one week of the following month. and i see they are being filled up in just one hour after they open. Same might be happening for H1bs schedules.
I'm trying to schedule an appointment for non-immigrant visa in August/September timeframe from last one week without any success. After filling the forms, and continuing further for checking the available dates, I get a message saying : " Interview appointments not currently available, please check back in 24 hours. "
I would really appreciate if you can educate me of what I might be doing wrong.
Thanks,
Ashish
I think once you fill forms it is valid for 1 week. You can directly try to schedule appointment using the saved forms for 1 week. I observed that for vistor visa appointments they open every thrusday /friday night indian timings and they make dates avaialble for only one week of the following month. and i see they are being filled up in just one hour after they open. Same might be happening for H1bs schedules.
I'm trying to schedule an appointment for non-immigrant visa in August/September timeframe from last one week without any success. After filling the forms, and continuing further for checking the available dates, I get a message saying : " Interview appointments not currently available, please check back in 24 hours. "
I would really appreciate if you can educate me of what I might be doing wrong.
Thanks,
Ashish
LONGGCQUE
02-04 10:03 AM
It was something like this -
- Did anyone assist u in prep this app ? If yes then,
- Pareparer Surname
- Preparer given name
- Organization name
- St address
- City
- State
- Zip
- Country
- Relationship to you
- Did anyone assist u in prep this app ? If yes then,
- Pareparer Surname
- Preparer given name
- Organization name
- St address
- City
- State
- Zip
- Country
- Relationship to you
No comments:
Post a Comment