Iamthejuggler
03-03 10:16 AM
It says traditional and scanned, or vector, so i assume PS is fine as long it's vector art.
wallpaper We surveyed 12 top ice-cream
Winner
05-21 12:31 PM
Good post
Pappu, Can this post be moved to "Ask lawyers" area of forum to get other lawyers opinion as well?
I've seen many companies trying their best to convince their employees to use their EAD instead of paying 10 times more for the H1B extension. This is very valid from company's stand point.
But it will be helpful for fellow immigrants to know exactly what they are getting into when they decide to when they abandon their H1B visa.
Pappu, Can this post be moved to "Ask lawyers" area of forum to get other lawyers opinion as well?
I've seen many companies trying their best to convince their employees to use their EAD instead of paying 10 times more for the H1B extension. This is very valid from company's stand point.
But it will be helpful for fellow immigrants to know exactly what they are getting into when they decide to when they abandon their H1B visa.
desi3933
08-26 02:32 PM
She can work for any company she wants... her EAD is not limited to any job/profession... So she can work for Company B or C or D
PS - My wife works for company B using AP/EAD that came as a result of my I485 done by my employer. So she should enter on AP and use EAD to work. No issues. She can always have the H1 in her back pocket for back up... I would consult a lawyer if I were you before using the H1...
She can not get an H4 though... thats seen as abandoning your AOS status...
Hope this helps...
>> She can not get an H4 though... thats seen as abandoning your AOS status...
Totally Incorrect.
________________
Not a legal advise.
PS - My wife works for company B using AP/EAD that came as a result of my I485 done by my employer. So she should enter on AP and use EAD to work. No issues. She can always have the H1 in her back pocket for back up... I would consult a lawyer if I were you before using the H1...
She can not get an H4 though... thats seen as abandoning your AOS status...
Hope this helps...
>> She can not get an H4 though... thats seen as abandoning your AOS status...
Totally Incorrect.
________________
Not a legal advise.
2011 Sweet corn ice cream
richasamuel@yahoo.com
08-29 10:51 PM
Hi frnds,
I used to work for a company A in california.. Boss is kind of using very bad language constantly and torchers almost everyday. Is there any1 who can help me out or has similar situations. Is there any1 that i can file a complain. Since he knew that I am on H1B and international student he was continuously abusing. any help would appreciated.
Tanx.
Keep one thing in mind every decision in life has its own pro's and con's.First of all with all self respect for yourself change your job.H1b itself is legalised slavery or human trafficking whatever you call it.unfortunately whether your employer tortures you or not every employer irrespective of whether you are a H1b or a Green card or a citizen will exploit you to the fullest, no matter what, that's the irony.
I used to work for a company A in california.. Boss is kind of using very bad language constantly and torchers almost everyday. Is there any1 who can help me out or has similar situations. Is there any1 that i can file a complain. Since he knew that I am on H1B and international student he was continuously abusing. any help would appreciated.
Tanx.
Keep one thing in mind every decision in life has its own pro's and con's.First of all with all self respect for yourself change your job.H1b itself is legalised slavery or human trafficking whatever you call it.unfortunately whether your employer tortures you or not every employer irrespective of whether you are a H1b or a Green card or a citizen will exploit you to the fullest, no matter what, that's the irony.
more...
kevnss
03-20 12:35 PM
You are right, here is the link to see more information about the rules..
Please read A. Approved Form I-140 Visa Petitions and Form I-485 Applications and B as well on Page 2
Link: "http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/I140_AC21_8403.pdf".
I have one question with regards to changing employer. My I-140 was approved long ago (in 2005) under EB3 and was filed for AOS during July 2007. But now we re-filed labor under EB2 got approved and refiled I-140 under EB2 category. I-140 under EB2 has been filed recently so I am assuming it will take months to get it approved. Now I am thinking of switching to new employer so what are my chances to move to new employer. Sorry am not sure if this message is already posted or not.
Please read A. Approved Form I-140 Visa Petitions and Form I-485 Applications and B as well on Page 2
Link: "http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/I140_AC21_8403.pdf".
I have one question with regards to changing employer. My I-140 was approved long ago (in 2005) under EB3 and was filed for AOS during July 2007. But now we re-filed labor under EB2 got approved and refiled I-140 under EB2 category. I-140 under EB2 has been filed recently so I am assuming it will take months to get it approved. Now I am thinking of switching to new employer so what are my chances to move to new employer. Sorry am not sure if this message is already posted or not.
India76
07-17 06:25 PM
India76,
U have till Aug 17th to file AOS. U can go to india and come back before AUG 17 to file
is it official that we can file till August 17th? i didn't see that in august bulletin. please let me know as you know how important is that..... Well its timing...
U have till Aug 17th to file AOS. U can go to india and come back before AUG 17 to file
is it official that we can file till August 17th? i didn't see that in august bulletin. please let me know as you know how important is that..... Well its timing...
more...
rainbow0929
08-08 05:08 AM
If you have worked for 40 quarters, you will be eligible for Soc Security irrespective of where you live. There are american citizens settled in the Carrebean Islands who get their social security checks there. However, the big question is "What if the social security runs of out of money when your time comes", Soc Security Admin will start having negative cash flows starting from 2008 beacuse of the baby boomers retiring in great nunbers and fewer younger people joining the work force in comparison. Or there might be the case that the payouts get reduced from the maximun of $ 1800 presently to a token payment of just $ 300..!
401 K money is yours and you can do what ever you like. You could with draw it in 3-4 installments over as many years, thus reducing the taxable income for the year- provided you can earn higher ROI on that money by investing in stock market of the country you plan to return to as compared to being vested in the US stock market. You may also keep in mind that currency exchange and strengthening/devalaution of the dollar against your home currency will also have an affect on ROI based on when you with draw. That affect is almost impossible to predict for any one.
Many people leave the money here in USA, so that they could use it for their kids when the kids return to USA for their higher education. What you want to do with 401K is entirely your call..
I know one needs atleast 40 credits to claim for SS. A Full time employee generally gets maximum of 4 credits per year. If that's correct, one needs to work as a full time in U.S. for atleast 10 years to claim SS. Am I right?
From where can I find out how many SS Credits I have collected so far?
Is there a government website link?
401 K money is yours and you can do what ever you like. You could with draw it in 3-4 installments over as many years, thus reducing the taxable income for the year- provided you can earn higher ROI on that money by investing in stock market of the country you plan to return to as compared to being vested in the US stock market. You may also keep in mind that currency exchange and strengthening/devalaution of the dollar against your home currency will also have an affect on ROI based on when you with draw. That affect is almost impossible to predict for any one.
Many people leave the money here in USA, so that they could use it for their kids when the kids return to USA for their higher education. What you want to do with 401K is entirely your call..
I know one needs atleast 40 credits to claim for SS. A Full time employee generally gets maximum of 4 credits per year. If that's correct, one needs to work as a full time in U.S. for atleast 10 years to claim SS. Am I right?
From where can I find out how many SS Credits I have collected so far?
Is there a government website link?
2010 Unusual Ice Cream Toppings
helmet
01-15 11:43 AM
now a days that test is mandatory for all Asian countries. If you did master's in US then you no need to take that test. in their website there is a point calculation chart for the points that you get in IELTS the corresponding points for canada pr. If won't take that test mostly they will reject the application if you are from Asia.
more...
Tshelar
01-02 02:11 PM
The consulate usually do need more info if you work for Pharmaceucatical or Biotech company. I work for a Pharmaecutical company and when I had gone for my Visa interview they were very specific to ask me if my work deals in any kind of research in chemicals etc. Since I work in the IT department and has nothing to do with reasearch they did not ask for any more info.
I think your wife should be fine if she furnishes the info that they need.
I think your wife should be fine if she furnishes the info that they need.
hair Download Free Ice cream
gc_kaavaali
12-08 01:33 PM
Hi guys,
IV need contributions to invest in the omnibus bill Lobbying efforts.. for more details look at below thread...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15905
IV need contributions to invest in the omnibus bill Lobbying efforts.. for more details look at below thread...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15905
more...
badluck
06-25 02:47 PM
It looks like my lawyer has already mailed the application to USCIS. The priority dates becomes current only on July 1st.
What are my options here? Does anyone has faced such a situation?
send new again. anyways first one is going to come back.
What are my options here? Does anyone has faced such a situation?
send new again. anyways first one is going to come back.
hot Pieces Ice cream Sundae 8
jonty_11
01-15 12:07 PM
Problem is it will be another $500 expense (Test plus air Tickets) as the test center is not in my state/city.
I do have a Masters from US and 6 plus years expirience in US.
I had written a detailed letter explaining all that....I am going to try to take it withing 120 days as stipulated in the letter...
I do have a Masters from US and 6 plus years expirience in US.
I had written a detailed letter explaining all that....I am going to try to take it withing 120 days as stipulated in the letter...
more...
house with Vanilla Ice Cream and
usirit
11-21 12:24 AM
By the way, what "...You are from ROW..." means :o
tattoo Ice cream
qualified_trash
12-03 06:53 AM
If the old 140 is revoked, according to the law, you are not allowed to get an extension based on it
this is only true if the revocation is due to fraud. if not, the PD is yours to keep.
this is only true if the revocation is due to fraud. if not, the PD is yours to keep.
more...
pictures As ice cream lovers,
Legal
08-03 12:42 PM
There should be a box for A number, is it blank?
I remember seeing this discussion more than a year ago. Some have A#, some don't.
My 485 notice has an A number next to "beneficiary" box with my name, 140 has name mentioned in the "applicant" box but no number.
They won't adjudicate 485 without fingerprints, but you have them done already, doubt this will be an issue.
I remember seeing this discussion more than a year ago. Some have A#, some don't.
My 485 notice has an A number next to "beneficiary" box with my name, 140 has name mentioned in the "applicant" box but no number.
They won't adjudicate 485 without fingerprints, but you have them done already, doubt this will be an issue.
dresses It#39;s called Ube Ice Cream and
perm2gc
08-26 01:19 AM
Dude it is pretty clear you dont belong here. If you joined a body-shop that replaced americans with cheap bodies then your employer violated the law and you were a willing accomplice. You are no better than an illegal alien. No wonder you are so scared of being replaced by yet another cheap body ! IV does not represent people like you.
Now get the hell out of here.well said dude
Now get the hell out of here.well said dude
more...
makeup Makes 1 quart; 1/2 cream and
illusions
04-21 02:42 PM
I got the Card Production Ordered e-mail today. No LUD even last night at 1 Am. Only one LUD today. My case is processed at Texas service center. And my receipt date is not with in their processing times.
Good luck to everyone.
Congrats on your approval. I have seen many approvals where the processing time doesn't match and i'm not sure if it's the case that they don't update it or they just process it randomly once the PD becomes current - anybody's guess i would think.
Good luck to everyone.
Congrats on your approval. I have seen many approvals where the processing time doesn't match and i'm not sure if it's the case that they don't update it or they just process it randomly once the PD becomes current - anybody's guess i would think.
girlfriend green-tea-ice-cream.jpg
Green06
08-24 11:02 AM
Keep cheking the link below. It is archive of Kathy's shows. EOD today or by tomorrow the show should be archived here.
http://wpr.org/webcasting/audioarchives_display.cfm?Code=dun
http://wpr.org/webcasting/audioarchives_display.cfm?Code=dun
hairstyles Addiction to Ice Cream
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.
santb1975
02-14 12:31 AM
it is very well appreciated
Support for the cause will bring results
Support for the cause will bring results
mwin
08-14 02:49 PM
325 + 70 + 180 + 170 = 745
How did you come up with $745? I-485 application fees were $325 + $70 fee for biometrics. That makes it $395 per application or $790 for two applications. Maybe your lawyer gave you incorrect advice about the fees??
How did you come up with $745? I-485 application fees were $325 + $70 fee for biometrics. That makes it $395 per application or $790 for two applications. Maybe your lawyer gave you incorrect advice about the fees??
No comments:
Post a Comment