cute hairstyle pictures
images cute hairstyles
waitingmygc
08-27 10:55 PM
If employer or attorney are not helpful then there are high chances that they are hiding something, may have communicated to you I-140 approved in EB-2 whereas in real EB-3. One of my friend already have experinced same problem, EB-3 instead of EB-2. His company is in Jersey and the name starts with N.
Another reason why employer is hiding (or don't want to share) suspecting that you can leave him.
Be careful and try some way (as suggested above) to know about your I-140. All the best.
Another reason why employer is hiding (or don't want to share) suspecting that you can leave him.
Be careful and try some way (as suggested above) to know about your I-140. All the best.
wallpaper Cute super Short haircuts
glus
01-24 09:13 AM
Thks for the response, but what I read on other sites for e.g murthydot.com and some other site in the Internet it is used even for situations where one did not realised their I-94 has expired and thought its not an issue, also for example such as employer forgot to file and its not application mistake as he was not aware about employers miss and etc. So based on a approved LCA one can get H1 approved and even get the unauthorized employment convert it into a valid employment for any period (based on conditions). I'll do more research on this and update this thread.
Meanwhile anyone with any other opinion is welcome here. Thks all
hi there:
One can only work for an H-1B employer for whom H1b petition is approved and is valid. By working for a different employer without filing a transfer of H-1b to the new employer, one falls out of status. Going back to the original employer A would not put such a person back into legal h-1b status at all. Consult an attorney to review your options. However, staying in the U.S. even if you go back to your original employer A, will not repair your out-of-status problem and most likely will count toward being illegally here. The odds are high that the USCIS will notice this sooner or later and you may have a big problem then. Since your visa stamp is till unexpired (I am not sure if it is still valid, even if it is still unexpired), maybe re-entering the U.S. and working for employer A would help, but still you should consult a good immigration attorney to see if that would be OK.
Best Regards,
Meanwhile anyone with any other opinion is welcome here. Thks all
hi there:
One can only work for an H-1B employer for whom H1b petition is approved and is valid. By working for a different employer without filing a transfer of H-1b to the new employer, one falls out of status. Going back to the original employer A would not put such a person back into legal h-1b status at all. Consult an attorney to review your options. However, staying in the U.S. even if you go back to your original employer A, will not repair your out-of-status problem and most likely will count toward being illegally here. The odds are high that the USCIS will notice this sooner or later and you may have a big problem then. Since your visa stamp is till unexpired (I am not sure if it is still valid, even if it is still unexpired), maybe re-entering the U.S. and working for employer A would help, but still you should consult a good immigration attorney to see if that would be OK.
Best Regards,
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
2011 Cute Girl With Cute Hairstyle
chanduv23
10-09 10:35 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
more...
ivar
03-12 09:57 AM
After a long 5 years I finally received 485 case approved letter for both my case and my spouse's case. However the online status still shows pending. Is this common?. How long would it take for the online case status to be updated.
EB2- PB Dec2003
485 Filed date: 08/02/07
Texas service center
Congratulations !! Enjoy.
EB2- PB Dec2003
485 Filed date: 08/02/07
Texas service center
Congratulations !! Enjoy.
devamanohar
08-15 05:00 AM
Is it necessary to file second time with I-140 reciept?
What is the fee?
Do you have new form I-485 and I-765 (EAD)?
What is the fee?
Do you have new form I-485 and I-765 (EAD)?
more...
howzatt
08-21 12:05 PM
bumping up??
Sanojkumar,
Please stop spamming all threads with this question. Please search at the very least wait for a reasonable amount of time to bump it.
Sanojkumar,
Please stop spamming all threads with this question. Please search at the very least wait for a reasonable amount of time to bump it.
2010 Cute hairstyles for women.
Riakapoor
09-16 05:17 PM
If you are genuine: Don�t do it. It will affect your GC.
If you are losers guild member using Indian name to post: Leave this forum immediately. I am tired of fake posts. I personally believe Riakapoor and ar7165 are fake.
Thanks for the advice. Excuse me how could you say that riakapoor is a fake? I am not active in IV but that doesn't mean I am fake.
If you are losers guild member using Indian name to post: Leave this forum immediately. I am tired of fake posts. I personally believe Riakapoor and ar7165 are fake.
Thanks for the advice. Excuse me how could you say that riakapoor is a fake? I am not active in IV but that doesn't mean I am fake.
more...
delhiguy
07-06 12:36 PM
To add my wife I'll need to pay 500+ per month which is pretty expensive. That's why I was looking for outside options. I found some on ehealthinsurance but none of them cover pregnancy.
Are you expecting a good insurance for less than that.
I believe if you a buy a insurance , which covers pre existing conditions from outside that may be much more than 500 usd a month.
Would recommend you to get your wife added in your company insurace..
Are you expecting a good insurance for less than that.
I believe if you a buy a insurance , which covers pre existing conditions from outside that may be much more than 500 usd a month.
Would recommend you to get your wife added in your company insurace..
hair Cute Long Bob Hairstyles
LondonTown
03-08 03:38 PM
Londontown
sorry to hear about your denial.
Regarding my friend, His 140 was denied but he was already on EAD by then.His 485 was not denied ( maybe they were not processing his 485 at that point.He is a july 07 filer under EB3-I). The appeal for 140 denial was filed and it is still pending(8 months now). Meanwhile a 2 yr EAD has been approved.
I am not sure if this process is followed for everyone as each case has its variables.....
hope this helps...
Thank you for your reply.
If you can ask, what documents your friend submitted to renew the EADs-- Was it pending 485 receipts OR appeal receipt for I-140?
sorry to hear about your denial.
Regarding my friend, His 140 was denied but he was already on EAD by then.His 485 was not denied ( maybe they were not processing his 485 at that point.He is a july 07 filer under EB3-I). The appeal for 140 denial was filed and it is still pending(8 months now). Meanwhile a 2 yr EAD has been approved.
I am not sure if this process is followed for everyone as each case has its variables.....
hope this helps...
Thank you for your reply.
If you can ask, what documents your friend submitted to renew the EADs-- Was it pending 485 receipts OR appeal receipt for I-140?
more...
sac-r-ten
03-12 09:40 PM
I did not get a second finger printing notice (yet?). The 485 approval notice said that a biometric appt may be sent or the card will arrive. Just keeping my fingers crossed.
My first FP was done in Dec 2007
Congrats. Hope 2 get ur email and cards soon.
My first FP was done in Nov 2007. Its already 15mths and i was wondering they will ask for 2nd one now. But seeing your case, i think my case is normal. i have also read some other threads where ppl have not received 2nd FP even after 15mths.
My first FP was done in Dec 2007
Congrats. Hope 2 get ur email and cards soon.
My first FP was done in Nov 2007. Its already 15mths and i was wondering they will ask for 2nd one now. But seeing your case, i think my case is normal. i have also read some other threads where ppl have not received 2nd FP even after 15mths.
hot Cute Hairstyles
harrydr
05-05 09:22 PM
Just a follow up question:
Now that i have my I-140 approved for over an year now and never filed for 485, does the similar/same job/field apply in case of a job change or can i have a new job responsibility with a new employer and then port my PD based upon the approved 1-140 from previous employer?
Now that i have my I-140 approved for over an year now and never filed for 485, does the similar/same job/field apply in case of a job change or can i have a new job responsibility with a new employer and then port my PD based upon the approved 1-140 from previous employer?
more...
house cute hairstyle
GCard_Dream
03-15 06:32 PM
Thanks a lot for all that good information. You mentioned about O*NET category and job zone. What is O*NET category and how do I know what category does my current job and expected future job fall under?
tattoo cute hairstyle for girls
rajasaab
10-25 09:21 AM
i think your best bet is to get an Indian Visa for your kid...the PIO card takes atleast 45 business days and the OCI takes almost 20 weeks!! I just applied for the PIO card for my daughter last friday at the DC consulate and they said it will be 45 days. BTW..thats not consulate dependent - the website also says that 45 days is the processing time.
also.. the US passport took 4-6 weeks (normal processing) you can pay extra and get it expedited.
Keep in mind that when you apply for the PIO card they will take the original US passport so incase you change your mind later and want to apply for a Visa you wont be able to!!
also.. the US passport took 4-6 weeks (normal processing) you can pay extra and get it expedited.
Keep in mind that when you apply for the PIO card they will take the original US passport so incase you change your mind later and want to apply for a Visa you wont be able to!!
more...
pictures Cute Short Hairstyles
return_to_india
12-19 02:36 AM
California unemployment quite high.
I have my backup as India ( i will sell one of my land properties there and survive ,
also no worry about medical costs - leading cause of bankrupt americans ), but what
about the citizen here, where do they go to survive ?!
I have my backup as India ( i will sell one of my land properties there and survive ,
also no worry about medical costs - leading cause of bankrupt americans ), but what
about the citizen here, where do they go to survive ?!
dresses Cute Celebrity Short Hairstyle
coolest_me
07-01 05:45 PM
if you are in California then fwd this to your employer
http://ezinearticles.com/?Legality-of-NonCompete-Agreements-in-California&id=74000
Non-Compete agreements are void in California. I had the same situation as you and in my case my vendor (new employer) helped me based on this law. I m in California
http://ezinearticles.com/?Legality-of-NonCompete-Agreements-in-California&id=74000
Non-Compete agreements are void in California. I had the same situation as you and in my case my vendor (new employer) helped me based on this law. I m in California
more...
makeup cute hairstyles for short hair
skumar9
04-13 03:20 PM
In my Query it states as 30 days...
girlfriend hairstyles Cute londe scene
Libra
08-03 12:30 PM
Guys, I am july 2nd filer and i got my checks cashed and waiting for reciepts....your checks will be cashed soon dont worry........until then why start new threads on same topic....instead will go to contribution thread and will start our posting there.....howzatt
hairstyles cute hairstyles for short hair
champu
03-09 05:23 PM
Mr. MLK Jr,
You had a dream - at least you were sleeping. I wish I could sleep too:p
You had a dream - at least you were sleeping. I wish I could sleep too:p
bondgoli007
07-14 04:39 PM
I was audited on 6/09 and Fragommenr responded on 6/30...No response so far and I have emailed my Fragommen paralegal the following questions;
1. Typically how long does DOL take to respond to an Audit?
2. What kind of response can I expect? Will it be an approval or a further Audit?
3. What % of cases get a further audit after a response is filed to an initial Audit?
I will send out a response when I hear from him.
Side question: Is my Priority date the date when PERM was applied or the date the PERM will be approved?
Thanks.
1. Typically how long does DOL take to respond to an Audit?
2. What kind of response can I expect? Will it be an approval or a further Audit?
3. What % of cases get a further audit after a response is filed to an initial Audit?
I will send out a response when I hear from him.
Side question: Is my Priority date the date when PERM was applied or the date the PERM will be approved?
Thanks.
shahuja
02-06 09:28 AM
i just called DOS. He asked for my visa type and passport number. He said "your visa has been issued in Jan. Call the New Delhi consulate and they should let you know if it would come through mail or do you need to go pick it up"
what happens next ?? how long after this stage it takes to get the visa ?? are there any other checks that could be going on ?? ONCE DOS approves are there any other agencies like FBI, KCC doing some other approvals as well ?? if you know what happens next let me know..waiting for posts..
so now i know I am not stuck due to PIMS and DOS cleared and approved my visa in Jan..what else then ??
what happens next ?? how long after this stage it takes to get the visa ?? are there any other checks that could be going on ?? ONCE DOS approves are there any other agencies like FBI, KCC doing some other approvals as well ?? if you know what happens next let me know..waiting for posts..
so now i know I am not stuck due to PIMS and DOS cleared and approved my visa in Jan..what else then ??
0 Yorum:
Yorum Gönder
Kaydol: Kayıt Yorumları [Atom]
<< Ana Sayfa