shreekhand
07-29 10:55 AM
Is your "baby" 21 yrs old yet ;) if not wait before before it turns 21 for sponsorship!
sree_99
02-01 08:09 PM
She is not using her EAD, She is enrolled fulltime in school.
anilsal
01-25 02:26 PM
should be an easy task for folks who live in the east bay to show up at the Fremont station and pass handouts.
If you cannot do this much, then it is .....
If you cannot do this much, then it is .....
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.
more...
sunny1000
04-20 06:25 PM
When it comes to immigration matters, my mantra is safe than sorry. I would still make the trip to the CBP office and get a date noted on the I-94. This way if you want to extend their stay, etc you will be covered.
I second that statement. Moreover, this gives you the peace of mind knowing that somebody at CBP won't screw up entering the I-94 info when your parents surrender this at the airline or give a hard time for a lack of date on the I-94 when your parents want to travel again.
I second that statement. Moreover, this gives you the peace of mind knowing that somebody at CBP won't screw up entering the I-94 info when your parents surrender this at the airline or give a hard time for a lack of date on the I-94 when your parents want to travel again.
ksrk
12-10 04:36 PM
Just EB1 through EB3 adds to 149579.
Wonder how this tallies with numbers discussed especially during Aug and Sept. 2008...
Wonder how this tallies with numbers discussed especially during Aug and Sept. 2008...
more...
aries
08-03 05:16 PM
whatever is the reason of revoking ? I just want to know if employer revokes an approved I140 withing 180 days of filling, will the employee know about it.
thanks!
Any answers to this questions ?
thanks!
Any answers to this questions ?
jliechty
June 6th, 2005, 07:07 PM
Would the 20D or D1MkII have greater tolerances i.e. wider range algorithms in the camera?
Not noticeably... I'd almost say that there would be no difference at all between the 350D and 20D, but don't own both (let alone either) so I can't say for sure. In theory, the 1DmkII should have slightly more DR due to its larger photosites, but I can't remember anything from the reviews to make a positive statement on this.
Not noticeably... I'd almost say that there would be no difference at all between the 350D and 20D, but don't own both (let alone either) so I can't say for sure. In theory, the 1DmkII should have slightly more DR due to its larger photosites, but I can't remember anything from the reviews to make a positive statement on this.
more...
qualified_trash
11-15 01:27 PM
you have a expired I-94 and a h1B which is valid
How can you have an expired I94 and valid H1B? It is technically not possible.
When your H1B expires when you are in the US and you apply for an extension of the H1B along with an extension of the stay of the person(s) since they now hold this status, you get a I797 where the right bottom part is your NEW I94. You are supposed to staple this to the old I94 in your passport and surrender the same when you fly out of the country to a non contiguous territory
That is how you were able to travel!!!!!!!
As for Automatic revalidation here is the link to the State Dept site:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegrams/telegrams_1441.html
How can you have an expired I94 and valid H1B? It is technically not possible.
When your H1B expires when you are in the US and you apply for an extension of the H1B along with an extension of the stay of the person(s) since they now hold this status, you get a I797 where the right bottom part is your NEW I94. You are supposed to staple this to the old I94 in your passport and surrender the same when you fly out of the country to a non contiguous territory
That is how you were able to travel!!!!!!!
As for Automatic revalidation here is the link to the State Dept site:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegrams/telegrams_1441.html
pappu
08-22 04:12 PM
Paskal:
Thanks for your kind reply. I am new to Buffalo, NY. Just moved from California. I dont know much ppl here. There is lots of indian community here but dont know why none is responding. If I can find one guy also I can book a car and drive there for rally.
Please send emails to your Univ. association email list. get in touch with your town's associations.
Thanks for your kind reply. I am new to Buffalo, NY. Just moved from California. I dont know much ppl here. There is lots of indian community here but dont know why none is responding. If I can find one guy also I can book a car and drive there for rally.
Please send emails to your Univ. association email list. get in touch with your town's associations.
more...
mhathi
01-08 09:08 AM
I agree with GC007. I have just been through a similar situation. My previous stamp was expiring on jan 21 07 and had gotten an extension upto 20010. I made trip to India this past december (2006) and was told by my lawyer to get the new visa stamped in India. This is because the new I-94 that you get with the extension has to be surrendered when you leave the country and on reentry you get a new I-94. That will be only valid upto the date stamped on ur passport and there is a rule that with regard to I-94, the last action takes precedence on previous actions.
This was for my H1 and my Spouse's H4 visa.
This was for my H1 and my Spouse's H4 visa.
for_gc
10-15 04:09 PM
Considering the lowered cost of stock I am planning to gets my hands dirty in stock. But I don't have much knwoeldge about it. Also, by the time I find resouces to learn more about stock, the prices might ahve gone up.
So can anyone provide good online tools to know more about investing on stocks and buying stocks online...
Thanks
Really nice to see that someone is willing to bet his money on Wall Street. :)
Looks like everybody else is deserting it at the moment.
So can anyone provide good online tools to know more about investing on stocks and buying stocks online...
Thanks
Really nice to see that someone is willing to bet his money on Wall Street. :)
Looks like everybody else is deserting it at the moment.
more...
.jpg "Aishwarya Rai looking Hot at a")
Sunx_2004
05-14 04:42 PM
I was under impression that there is last quarter quota still remain...
Based on below they used it all...
:confused:
I am sure this is noticed by many :
"E. EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
Demand for numbers, primarily by Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices for adjustment of status cases, is expected to bring the Employment Third preference category very close to the annual numerical limit in June. As a result, this category is likely to experience retrogressions or visa unavailability beginning in July. Such action would only be temporary, however, and a complete recovery of the cut-off dates would occur for October, the first month of the new fiscal year. "
Based on below they used it all...
:confused:
I am sure this is noticed by many :
"E. EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
Demand for numbers, primarily by Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices for adjustment of status cases, is expected to bring the Employment Third preference category very close to the annual numerical limit in June. As a result, this category is likely to experience retrogressions or visa unavailability beginning in July. Such action would only be temporary, however, and a complete recovery of the cut-off dates would occur for October, the first month of the new fiscal year. "
pnara2
11-30 08:51 PM
I have been reading about CIR since last 4 yrs and so far no action has been taken on this topic. Obama administration too is just good at promises! There is virtually no messiah who can help legal immigrants! Time is the only saviour of legal immigrants! So the mantra should be "wait, wait and wait..........."
more...
anindya1234
07-17 10:32 PM
The link is not working
Jaime
06-13 01:58 PM
If you are on EB3 then you ARE retrogressed. The entire world (which includes Brazil) is retrogressed on EB3. Now, if you meant to write "EB2" then that's another story...
more...
greencard_fever
08-04 04:17 PM
I just checked my A#'s on both approved I-140 and pending I-485 both are different..what should i do now..do i need to call USCIS to open a ticket to reconsile the two A#'s or it's ok to have like this:confused::confused:
snathan
04-15 06:32 PM
Hello,
You have no idea how I am desperate and will appreciate your help.
I basically get a 0 1 visa to work for a first employer. Then I get another job offer and leaved the first employer who revoked my initial visa.
The new employer was supposed to apply for a new visa for me but he never did it. He get debts problems and laid off half of the company including me.
My only visa has really been revoked so I really overstayed 7 months.
Today I got another job offer with a new sponsorship so I saw several attorneys and some of them said nothing was possible to do and some said it was maybe possible to fix the overstay.
Today I have to take a decision, go thought this new job offer and take the risk to never get the visa and then the job - or forget about it, leave the US right now and think about the USA in 3 years.
Please help me - what do you think I should do? Is it really impossible to get an overstay waiver with a new petitioner?
Thanks a lot for your advises
As you overstayed more than 180 days...you might be barred entering the US for 3-10 years. But there is no other option for you..
Good luck
You have no idea how I am desperate and will appreciate your help.
I basically get a 0 1 visa to work for a first employer. Then I get another job offer and leaved the first employer who revoked my initial visa.
The new employer was supposed to apply for a new visa for me but he never did it. He get debts problems and laid off half of the company including me.
My only visa has really been revoked so I really overstayed 7 months.
Today I got another job offer with a new sponsorship so I saw several attorneys and some of them said nothing was possible to do and some said it was maybe possible to fix the overstay.
Today I have to take a decision, go thought this new job offer and take the risk to never get the visa and then the job - or forget about it, leave the US right now and think about the USA in 3 years.
Please help me - what do you think I should do? Is it really impossible to get an overstay waiver with a new petitioner?
Thanks a lot for your advises
As you overstayed more than 180 days...you might be barred entering the US for 3-10 years. But there is no other option for you..
Good luck
eb3_nepa
04-17 05:04 PM
The illegals aren't Americans either and the email from Kennedy's staff basically talks about how well-received his Apr 10th speech in DC was and how the senator intends to fight to push immigration reform through the congress.
A lot of people signing up will give the staff the right impetus.
Appu can you pls post some link or documentation showing that this is indeed in our favour. If it is then i have no problem supporting it. But from the looks of it, it seems like it is against H1Bs and temporary workers.
Let us pls be careful as to what we sign/support. A couple of mistakes could spell disaster for all of us.
A lot of people signing up will give the staff the right impetus.
Appu can you pls post some link or documentation showing that this is indeed in our favour. If it is then i have no problem supporting it. But from the looks of it, it seems like it is against H1Bs and temporary workers.
Let us pls be careful as to what we sign/support. A couple of mistakes could spell disaster for all of us.
h1bemployee
02-25 09:03 PM
Are you for real? USCIS has nothing to do with LCA amendment. That should be DOL (Department of Labor).
thats what my employer told me....
thats what my employer told me....
Quest99
09-14 03:30 PM
Here is my story:
I work for Company A. Got an offer from Company B who is a consulting company. Got placed in a project which is like 1.5 hrs away from my home (I accepted this opportunity for my GC and everything was fine). Company B filed for my LCA for the H1-B transfer. They accepted to pay all the H1-B transfer fees.
Here is my problem:
1 week after my LCA was filed, I came to know that my wife was pregnant. As per the doctor she needs some close attention and care because of her health condition(atleast for 2 months). Also, I have to take her for tests minimum once per week at a hospital which is quite opposite in direction where company B placed me (2hrs ride).
I came to a conclusion not to take this opportunity because of my wife's health and also keeping in mind how the new job will treat me (in terms of flexibility. leaving early, WFH etc - for my wife's treatment). I felt this was a genuine reason from my side.
I informed Company B about this change of plan because I cannot commute such a long distance having these constraints in mind (not good for me as well as not good for the new project).
Company B is asking me pay $3000 for some damages and they say that it is as per the contract.
To my true knowledge I did not sign any kind of contract with them neither the recruiter told me anything. Now Company B is saying that minimum 3 months is required or I have to pay for H1-B transfer and all other fees.
The offer letter that I signed clearly stated that the employment is "At Will" in nature which when asked now, Company B is saying that is for GC and Citizens (which is not mentioned anywhere in the offer letter).
The thing is that they are threatening me and they were so rough and hard when I finally spoke to them. They said that they will be sending the vouchers for me to pay them back.
I thank God for not joining this company as I came to know about their true colors now, they are so money minded and the words they spoke were so harmful. I am pretty sure they would have created more problems for some other reasons if I had joined them.
Even though I did not sign any bond, I am really scared by the way they spoke to me. Any help or advice will be greatly appreciated.
I work for Company A. Got an offer from Company B who is a consulting company. Got placed in a project which is like 1.5 hrs away from my home (I accepted this opportunity for my GC and everything was fine). Company B filed for my LCA for the H1-B transfer. They accepted to pay all the H1-B transfer fees.
Here is my problem:
1 week after my LCA was filed, I came to know that my wife was pregnant. As per the doctor she needs some close attention and care because of her health condition(atleast for 2 months). Also, I have to take her for tests minimum once per week at a hospital which is quite opposite in direction where company B placed me (2hrs ride).
I came to a conclusion not to take this opportunity because of my wife's health and also keeping in mind how the new job will treat me (in terms of flexibility. leaving early, WFH etc - for my wife's treatment). I felt this was a genuine reason from my side.
I informed Company B about this change of plan because I cannot commute such a long distance having these constraints in mind (not good for me as well as not good for the new project).
Company B is asking me pay $3000 for some damages and they say that it is as per the contract.
To my true knowledge I did not sign any kind of contract with them neither the recruiter told me anything. Now Company B is saying that minimum 3 months is required or I have to pay for H1-B transfer and all other fees.
The offer letter that I signed clearly stated that the employment is "At Will" in nature which when asked now, Company B is saying that is for GC and Citizens (which is not mentioned anywhere in the offer letter).
The thing is that they are threatening me and they were so rough and hard when I finally spoke to them. They said that they will be sending the vouchers for me to pay them back.
I thank God for not joining this company as I came to know about their true colors now, they are so money minded and the words they spoke were so harmful. I am pretty sure they would have created more problems for some other reasons if I had joined them.
Even though I did not sign any bond, I am really scared by the way they spoke to me. Any help or advice will be greatly appreciated.
No comments:
Post a Comment