venkat_shiv
07-26 09:58 AM
Hi,
I want to know if i can get a GC without the labour filing. I am currently on L1A visa, but i came into US initially on H1B visa. Given below are the details
H1B petition approved on: 10/01/2005
Entry into USA on H1B : 04/23/2006
L1A petition approved on : 09/23/2008
Different people tell me different things, some say i will still be considered as H1B and hence have to go through labour filing since i entered USA in H1B status. Some say since my current visa is L1A, i qualify for EB1 category and hence labour is not required and i will get the GC in 6 months. Not sure what is true.
please let me know
Thanks
I want to know if i can get a GC without the labour filing. I am currently on L1A visa, but i came into US initially on H1B visa. Given below are the details
H1B petition approved on: 10/01/2005
Entry into USA on H1B : 04/23/2006
L1A petition approved on : 09/23/2008
Different people tell me different things, some say i will still be considered as H1B and hence have to go through labour filing since i entered USA in H1B status. Some say since my current visa is L1A, i qualify for EB1 category and hence labour is not required and i will get the GC in 6 months. Not sure what is true.
please let me know
Thanks
wallpaper Art Chest Tattoo Design For
Blog Feeds
06-26 09:40 AM
Sounding good: THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________ For Immediate Release June 25, 2009 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AFTER MEETING WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO DISCUSS IMMIGRATION State Dining Room 3:17 P.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. We have just finished what I consider to be a very productive meeting on one of the most critical issues that I think this nation faces, and that is an immigration system that is broken and needs fixing. We have members of Congress from both chambers, from parties, who have participated in the meeting and shared a range of ideas....
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/obamas-statement-on-immigration-summit.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/obamas-statement-on-immigration-summit.html)
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
2011 male star tattoos.
ilyaslamasse
03-11 05:09 PM
In Kirupa's tutorial about that rotating square, we eventually export our animation as a swf. Isn't there a way to export it as a fla that we can manipulate afterwards ??
pom 0] , totally new to Swift.
pom 0] , totally new to Swift.
more...
techno_arch
09-19 07:50 PM
I applied for my AP in June and recently at the end of August my AP was approved. I received the AP a couple of weeks later in mail. However I noticed that instead of receiving the I-512 Authorization of Parole of an Alien into the United States, I received an I-797C Notice of Action document for me an my wife. The contents of this I-797C are exactly the same as the previous I-512s that I have filed for and received over the years.
What I am afraid of is that this may cause problem at the port of entry when I return back from India because of the wrong title of the document.
Has anyone else received such a a document I-797C instead of I-512 and is it safe to travel having such a document? Any advice/input is appreciated.
What I am afraid of is that this may cause problem at the port of entry when I return back from India because of the wrong title of the document.
Has anyone else received such a a document I-797C instead of I-512 and is it safe to travel having such a document? Any advice/input is appreciated.
Blog Feeds
09-15 12:40 PM
Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo each link to my post from Friday. Zackary Roth at TCM also checked with additional immigration lawyers in South Carolina who had similar reports to the ones with whom I spoke. And not to stray too far from the more important question, my friend Marshall Fitz at the Center for American Progress has a new piece refuting the lie that illegally present immigrants are covered by health care reform proposals.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/more-people-are-asking-whether-joe-wilson-really-practiced-immigration-lawyer-.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/more-people-are-asking-whether-joe-wilson-really-practiced-immigration-lawyer-.html)
more...
smuggymba
01-19 03:48 PM
GC is for future job, is your PERM was not suspended, you can continue with the same application.
If you're on H1-B - YES - a transfer is required to work for company A becuase you resigned and left and technically company B owns your H1-B.
If you're on H1-B - YES - a transfer is required to work for company A becuase you resigned and left and technically company B owns your H1-B.
2010 girlfriend star tattoos on
Blog Feeds
05-18 10:10 AM
One of my long-time paralegals at Siskind Susser, PC is Esther Schacther Fridman. Esther, who grew up here in Memphis, is the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors. In 2005, she married Benny Fridman, an Israeli who was on a work visa in Memphis at the time. The two moved to Israel shortly thereafter and Esther continues working with the firm on writing projects. Esther and Benny are the subject of a new documentary which premiered in Memphis last night. The union of Esther and Benny is unusual - their eight grandparents were all Holocaust survivors. I am friends with two of...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/a-testimony-to-survival.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/a-testimony-to-survival.html)
more...
kirupa
07-13 03:39 AM
Added! :)
hair Amid his religious tattoos,
aioros
05-13 10:04 PM
cooooooooooool! :D
more...
vallabhu
04-10 09:34 PM
Bump
hot to include stars tattoos
desi3933
06-25 02:40 PM
Do we need copy of I140 approval notice or original while submitting I 485?
Copy of the I-140 approval notice
Not a legal advice
-----------------------
desi3933 at gmail.com
Copy of the I-140 approval notice
Not a legal advice
-----------------------
desi3933 at gmail.com
more...
house Celtic Star on your Chest!
maddipati1
12-09 04:20 PM
one of my friend worked here on L1 for couple of years for employer A.
then he got a H1 approved effective from Oct'07, with employer B.
but, he did not actually start working under employer B on H1 (payroll) until Mar'08.
he continued working under employer A on L1 ( has paystubs without any break) until Mar'08 and then worked with employer B on H1.
now he did a cap-exmpt H1 transfer to employer C, got H1 apporved and they are filing for GC labor PERM petition.
question is, while providing his previous employers info in the PERM petition,
can he say that he worked with employer A on L1 until Mar'08, even though his H1 with employer B is effective from oct'07?
appreciate any advice
then he got a H1 approved effective from Oct'07, with employer B.
but, he did not actually start working under employer B on H1 (payroll) until Mar'08.
he continued working under employer A on L1 ( has paystubs without any break) until Mar'08 and then worked with employer B on H1.
now he did a cap-exmpt H1 transfer to employer C, got H1 apporved and they are filing for GC labor PERM petition.
question is, while providing his previous employers info in the PERM petition,
can he say that he worked with employer A on L1 until Mar'08, even though his H1 with employer B is effective from oct'07?
appreciate any advice
tattoo lebron james tattoo 400 chest
sertasheep
10-20 10:44 AM
Date/Time: Friday October 20, 2006 12:00 - 1:00 PM East Coast Time
Attorney: Sonal Mehta Verma from Nankin and Verma
Phone Number: 1-712-432-3000
Bridge Number: 153151
Range of Question IDs Covered: 71 through 100.
Conference Call Etiquette:
-We request you to put yourself on mute by pressing the following keys in succession ( 4 and *) to avoid ambient noise(breathing, background conversations, wind-noise, cellular phone static, traffic and other disturbance from your line).
- If you have a follow-up question to pose after the attorney provides a response, you can press 4* again to unmute your line. One follow-up question is permitted in real-time.
- If you have problems connecting into the call, please try after a few minutes.
Attorney: Sonal Mehta Verma from Nankin and Verma
Phone Number: 1-712-432-3000
Bridge Number: 153151
Range of Question IDs Covered: 71 through 100.
Conference Call Etiquette:
-We request you to put yourself on mute by pressing the following keys in succession ( 4 and *) to avoid ambient noise(breathing, background conversations, wind-noise, cellular phone static, traffic and other disturbance from your line).
- If you have a follow-up question to pose after the attorney provides a response, you can press 4* again to unmute your line. One follow-up question is permitted in real-time.
- If you have problems connecting into the call, please try after a few minutes.
more...
pictures star tattoo design but
fromnaija
12-09 04:25 PM
If you have only one copy ICE officer will make a copy at the port of entry and give you the original. If you have two copies, ICE will take one and give you the other.
dresses Tattoo on Chest of Heart
arbhaat
06-21 10:36 AM
No. I have same situation and this thing never came up.
more...
makeup Shooting Star Tattoo
Bazuca
04-03 08:00 AM
Poser is a great program and I think you can export swf.:smokin:
girlfriend Tattoo Tags: Female Tattoos,
sri2005_05
08-12 10:34 PM
Hi,
I would like to know can i change employer after my i-140 got approved.My i-140 got approved 6 months back and i have h1 until next year
I would like to know can i change employer after my i-140 got approved.My i-140 got approved 6 months back and i have h1 until next year
hairstyles Nautical Star Tattoos: the
ajaysri
04-09 02:29 PM
Hi,
I have changed to a new employer using AC-21 recently. I have pro-actively sent AC-21 documentation (new offer of employment, covering letter and supporting docs) to USCIS. Ever since, I am checking my case online. Its about 3 months now that I have sent this info and there has not been any update/LUD on my 485 case so far. I am not sure if my I-485 case has details about my new employment.
I am currently doing my EAD renewal. I am thinking if it will be possible to indicate to USCIS about my new employment. Can you please advice on -
a) if it is wise to do so?
b) How can it be done?
Thanks,
Ajaysri
I have changed to a new employer using AC-21 recently. I have pro-actively sent AC-21 documentation (new offer of employment, covering letter and supporting docs) to USCIS. Ever since, I am checking my case online. Its about 3 months now that I have sent this info and there has not been any update/LUD on my 485 case so far. I am not sure if my I-485 case has details about my new employment.
I am currently doing my EAD renewal. I am thinking if it will be possible to indicate to USCIS about my new employment. Can you please advice on -
a) if it is wise to do so?
b) How can it be done?
Thanks,
Ajaysri
aebuddy
10-12 09:04 AM
I Dont Get The File Type, I Mean It wouldn't let me put it in flash but im dumb so...what can i do w/ it, by the way, i just got it yesterday...
sam_hoosier
09-16 02:16 PM
... at the blazing speed of 22 days a month.
;)
Even small progress is good at this stage :D
;)
Even small progress is good at this stage :D
No comments:
Post a Comment