arian2002
08-17 11:56 AM
My drivers license is expiring in October as well as my H-1B. My company has applied for H-1B renewal in July and it seems it will not get renewed before end of October. I have an approved I-140. Does anyone know if I can get my license renewed without the new H-1B approval notice in hand? Thanks everyone in advance.
wallpaper Tribal Tattoo Designs
dc4opera
05-18 11:27 PM
I need some advice from the people on this board.
My labor certification was recently approved via PERM. My employer will soon be signing the paperwork to file the I-140 with INS. My contract with him expires in February 2007, and he wants me to continue working for him beyond that. I, however, have expressed my desire NOT to stay with him any longer than I need to. Obviously, I will need to stay until 6 months have passed from the filing of my I-485 for portability to kick in.
Because of this, he wants me to WAIT until January 2007 to file my I-485. This way he is assured that I will be working for him until June 2007. My question is, does he have any right to coerce me to wait until January 2007 to file the I-485?
I initially agreed to this delay in filing because I was under the impression that BOTH the I-140 and I-485 were to be filed by the employer, and that I-485 processing took about 6 months. Now that I have learned that the I-485 is to be filed by me and that I-485 processing can take more than a year, are there any downsides to me filing the I-485 earlier than January 2007 WITHOUT MY EMPLOYER KNOWING?
I realize that "honesty is the best policy" but the situation is truly untenable for me and I feel that he is purposely delaying the processing of my INS papers to keep me at his mercy. Another factor to consider is that the lawyer we will be using for the I-140 will be the same one who will file my I-485. Can I invoke attorney-client privilege with regards to the I-485 so that they cannot tell my employer that I filed it earlier than he wanted? For that matter, can I use a different lawyer to file the I-485 that the one who filed the I-140?
Any opinions and suggestions regarding this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much and good luck to all!
My labor certification was recently approved via PERM. My employer will soon be signing the paperwork to file the I-140 with INS. My contract with him expires in February 2007, and he wants me to continue working for him beyond that. I, however, have expressed my desire NOT to stay with him any longer than I need to. Obviously, I will need to stay until 6 months have passed from the filing of my I-485 for portability to kick in.
Because of this, he wants me to WAIT until January 2007 to file my I-485. This way he is assured that I will be working for him until June 2007. My question is, does he have any right to coerce me to wait until January 2007 to file the I-485?
I initially agreed to this delay in filing because I was under the impression that BOTH the I-140 and I-485 were to be filed by the employer, and that I-485 processing took about 6 months. Now that I have learned that the I-485 is to be filed by me and that I-485 processing can take more than a year, are there any downsides to me filing the I-485 earlier than January 2007 WITHOUT MY EMPLOYER KNOWING?
I realize that "honesty is the best policy" but the situation is truly untenable for me and I feel that he is purposely delaying the processing of my INS papers to keep me at his mercy. Another factor to consider is that the lawyer we will be using for the I-140 will be the same one who will file my I-485. Can I invoke attorney-client privilege with regards to the I-485 so that they cannot tell my employer that I filed it earlier than he wanted? For that matter, can I use a different lawyer to file the I-485 that the one who filed the I-140?
Any opinions and suggestions regarding this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much and good luck to all!
jediknight
09-17 01:28 AM
Thanks to everyone who signed the petition.
I believe in freedom of speech but Dobbs is using the CNN platform to spew hate. A legitimate debate is fine but hate speech is not ok.
I used to believe that ignore him was the best way to deal with him but after seeing some of the so called Tax parties, I am starting to think that ignoring him does not work.
Please also post this to other web forums, facebook, twitter and send emails to your friends and colleagues asking them to sign the petition.
- JK
I believe in freedom of speech but Dobbs is using the CNN platform to spew hate. A legitimate debate is fine but hate speech is not ok.
I used to believe that ignore him was the best way to deal with him but after seeing some of the so called Tax parties, I am starting to think that ignoring him does not work.
Please also post this to other web forums, facebook, twitter and send emails to your friends and colleagues asking them to sign the petition.
- JK
2011 house Tribal back tattoos
permfiling
10-27 08:06 PM
Myself and spouse received I797 , 485 approval notices with one on 10/15 and another on 10/18. I took infopass and had the I551 stamping. I guess now the wait starts for the physical cards. I heard that they are produced in batches so that would cause the delay
more...
bheemi
03-15 11:05 AM
Hi,
I dont think anybody pushing forward about this issue..Filing of 485 during retrogression..
Immigration Voice :
Is there any scope any where to add this to current bill...are our immigration voice working towards this issue at all...if so can you pls let us know what you are doing for this issue..because I did not see anywhere updates from immigration voice ..or any ammendments on this issue..
I dont think anybody pushing forward about this issue..Filing of 485 during retrogression..
Immigration Voice :
Is there any scope any where to add this to current bill...are our immigration voice working towards this issue at all...if so can you pls let us know what you are doing for this issue..because I did not see anywhere updates from immigration voice ..or any ammendments on this issue..
number30
05-08 06:27 PM
What if you directly send a personal check?
MAy be good for large amounts. But for small amount too much fees is associated. I sent some checks of $100 to a charity , almost Rs 500 was deducted as fees for every Check. It was Syndicate Bank where they encashed the check.
MAy be good for large amounts. But for small amount too much fees is associated. I sent some checks of $100 to a charity , almost Rs 500 was deducted as fees for every Check. It was Syndicate Bank where they encashed the check.
more...
srsrsr
07-20 06:09 PM
My PD is Nov 2004, I got 140 approved. Im not filing 485 now as im unmarried.
Any ideas when can be the date current again(for my PD atleast)?
Any ideas when can be the date current again(for my PD atleast)?
2010 Tattoos Designs
.jpg "tribal back tattoo designs.")
DallasBlue
09-26 09:14 PM
Check out the local chapter messages on how to call in.
more...
puvathoor
02-17 11:02 AM
"U" does not mean quota is done for FY 08...it may be "U" becoz for those categoreis, quarterly quota exhausted....USCIS normally does not grab the entire FY's quota at one time...they do it quarterly basis.
Even i think definitely before Oct itself, EB2 India moves ahead.
Pasted below is language from the Jan 2008 Visa Bulletin..
-------------------
D. INDIA EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE CUT-OFF DATE RETROGRESSION FOR JANUARY
It has been necessary to once again retrogress the India Employment Second preference cut-off date. This is a direct result of continued heavy applicant demand for numbers by CIS for adjustment of status cases despite the retrogression which occurred for December. It is likely that the annual limit for this category will be reached within the next few months, at which time the category would become “unavailable” for the remainder of fiscal year 2008.
-----------------
Based upon the above information in the Jan 2008 VB, I cannot digest that they use visa numbers on a quarterly basis.. I can appreciate visa numbers becoming available in later part of 2008 FY because of spillover from the other categories ( EB1) or ROW categories..
Also, Agree that credibility of this quote is to be questioned.. This is a very specific date / comment (I doubt State dept can predict April #s a month in advance of the actual date of release. Additionally, as discussed in many forums, because of the new no NC required if > 180 days, a lot of older PD applications in all categories will start getting visa # allocated. This is probably starting only in late Feb and pick up steam in March... I would think that state dept will wait and see how many visa # s are being allocated before making a drastic move on any visa categories..
I did some more searches on the Search engines and it did return out this statement across a few law firms' websites..
http://www.subhani-law.com/subhanilaw_subidx_news.aspx?main_idx=GAdmin2003551 43026
So the potential of a movement in the 2nd half because of spill over from Eb1 India / China to Eb2 India / China remains..
There is reason to be optimistic..
Even i think definitely before Oct itself, EB2 India moves ahead.
Pasted below is language from the Jan 2008 Visa Bulletin..
-------------------
D. INDIA EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE CUT-OFF DATE RETROGRESSION FOR JANUARY
It has been necessary to once again retrogress the India Employment Second preference cut-off date. This is a direct result of continued heavy applicant demand for numbers by CIS for adjustment of status cases despite the retrogression which occurred for December. It is likely that the annual limit for this category will be reached within the next few months, at which time the category would become “unavailable” for the remainder of fiscal year 2008.
-----------------
Based upon the above information in the Jan 2008 VB, I cannot digest that they use visa numbers on a quarterly basis.. I can appreciate visa numbers becoming available in later part of 2008 FY because of spillover from the other categories ( EB1) or ROW categories..
Also, Agree that credibility of this quote is to be questioned.. This is a very specific date / comment (I doubt State dept can predict April #s a month in advance of the actual date of release. Additionally, as discussed in many forums, because of the new no NC required if > 180 days, a lot of older PD applications in all categories will start getting visa # allocated. This is probably starting only in late Feb and pick up steam in March... I would think that state dept will wait and see how many visa # s are being allocated before making a drastic move on any visa categories..
I did some more searches on the Search engines and it did return out this statement across a few law firms' websites..
http://www.subhani-law.com/subhanilaw_subidx_news.aspx?main_idx=GAdmin2003551 43026
So the potential of a movement in the 2nd half because of spill over from Eb1 India / China to Eb2 India / China remains..
There is reason to be optimistic..
hair Back tribal tattoo
kicca
01-25 06:43 PM
^^
more...
jgh_res
05-17 10:01 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
hot Tribal Tattoo Design for
ishwarmahajan@yahoo.com
09-24 05:37 PM
I am hoping you are going to change job in the same profession. What iti means is if you are working on technical side in IT, you are going to continue on technical side no matter what your designation is. I feel that USCIS has clear guidlines on this. please refer to the link below:
http://stats.bls.gov/soc/socguide.htm
I think following information on this link could help you to make a quick decision. I addition you should consult to attorney before you make your final decision.
"Supervisors of professional and technical workers usually have a background similar to the workers they supervise, and are therefore classified with the workers they supervise. Likewise, team leaders, lead workers and supervisors of production, sales, and service workers who spend at least 20 percent of their time performing work similar to the workers they supervise are classified with the workers they supervise.
First-line managers and supervisors of production, service, and sales workers who spend more than 80 percent of their time performing supervisory activities are classified separately in the appropriate supervisor category, since their work activities are distinct from those of the workers they supervise. First-line managers are generally found in smaller establishments where they perform both supervisory and management functions, such as accounting, marketing, and personnel work."
:):):)
Thanks,
Ishwar
http://stats.bls.gov/soc/socguide.htm
I think following information on this link could help you to make a quick decision. I addition you should consult to attorney before you make your final decision.
"Supervisors of professional and technical workers usually have a background similar to the workers they supervise, and are therefore classified with the workers they supervise. Likewise, team leaders, lead workers and supervisors of production, sales, and service workers who spend at least 20 percent of their time performing work similar to the workers they supervise are classified with the workers they supervise.
First-line managers and supervisors of production, service, and sales workers who spend more than 80 percent of their time performing supervisory activities are classified separately in the appropriate supervisor category, since their work activities are distinct from those of the workers they supervise. First-line managers are generally found in smaller establishments where they perform both supervisory and management functions, such as accounting, marketing, and personnel work."
:):):)
Thanks,
Ishwar
more...
house Lower Back Tattoos
sledge_hammer
02-08 01:25 PM
All I'm doing is trying to keep this thread alive by posting something :p
tattoo beautiful tribal back tattoo
Bpositive
01-05 10:20 PM
Thanks. We are answering the 221g questions. Not clear about the format of the "invitation letter" from the sponsor/employer. Should this be in txt format and in the same document as the answers to the other questions? Or can this be a separate scanned pdf...
Anyone?
This thing is driving me crazy...
Do we need to send an invitation letter in a .txt format? How do I send an invitation letter with letterhead and signature in a .txt format?
Anyone?
This thing is driving me crazy...
Do we need to send an invitation letter in a .txt format? How do I send an invitation letter with letterhead and signature in a .txt format?
more...
pictures Arm Band Tattoos Design tribal
shsk
07-16 11:40 PM
thk u very much
dresses tribal back tattoo designs
anurakt
01-21 02:12 PM
I joined Immigration voice on orkut. My name is Chandrakanth
Thanks , I see lot of people joining now.
Thanks , I see lot of people joining now.
more...
makeup tribal upper ack tattoos
DallasBlue
09-25 11:03 PM
IMPORTANT
---------
Texas IV Members Conference Call
--------------------------------
WHEN: Saturday, September 29th, 2007 @ 12:00 PM NOON
HOW TO DIAL IN?
Call this number - 785-686-2400
And enter PIN you got from texas IV yahoo group
---------
Texas IV Members Conference Call
--------------------------------
WHEN: Saturday, September 29th, 2007 @ 12:00 PM NOON
HOW TO DIAL IN?
Call this number - 785-686-2400
And enter PIN you got from texas IV yahoo group
girlfriend Lower Back Tribal Tattoo
H1Girl
10-13 03:05 PM
...
But never a tie.
Wrong... who said Tie is Not OK? Some officers wear Tie...
But never a tie.
Wrong... who said Tie is Not OK? Some officers wear Tie...
hairstyles Tattoo Designs. Back Top
webm
04-21 02:24 PM
I wanted to inform the community that our GC is finally approved... I just checked my email hoping against hope that I might see some good news and good news is what I saw...
This is a tremendous relief to us.
They have approved and ordered card production to myself and my spouse. But looks like they have not approved our son's GC. Hope they don't delay that last piece of processing any longer.
Good luck to everybody else and hope you all the best.
Congrats to you!! hopeful08
This is a tremendous relief to us.
They have approved and ordered card production to myself and my spouse. But looks like they have not approved our son's GC. Hope they don't delay that last piece of processing any longer.
Good luck to everybody else and hope you all the best.
Congrats to you!! hopeful08
Aah_GC
07-16 04:01 PM
I agree. These days I freak out when I go to Murthy's website. All that verbose is just a sneeze's worth of what you read in this site. I am almost allergic of murthy.com.
You've got to hand it to these attorneys. They have a way of writing a lot without saying anything.
Sheela Murthy excels in this art. In this situation, should we still file for 485 or not? She will write a whole page on this and finally say you have to make that decision yourself.
Thank you, but I already know that one!
You've got to hand it to these attorneys. They have a way of writing a lot without saying anything.
Sheela Murthy excels in this art. In this situation, should we still file for 485 or not? She will write a whole page on this and finally say you have to make that decision yourself.
Thank you, but I already know that one!
GC_2007
12-22 12:05 PM
Your new employer has to start GC from scratch, but you can retain your old PD if your I140 is approved.
No comments:
Post a Comment