somegchuh
01-07 11:56 AM
It should not be a problem. Our GC's were approved when we were overseas and we came in using AP's.
Try to bring print outs of approval from USCIS website. If you have that, they will admit you as a PR. I tried explaining but they didn't listen and used the AP. If you have a printout they willl stamp your passport as a PR and let you in.
Try to bring print outs of approval from USCIS website. If you have that, they will admit you as a PR. I tried explaining but they didn't listen and used the AP. If you have a printout they willl stamp your passport as a PR and let you in.
wallpaper naruto shippuden sasuke vs
PD200711
01-22 03:43 PM
Case type: H-1 approval without end-client letter
Submitted by Rajiv S. Khanna on Jan 20th 2010, Modified on Jan 20th 2010
Category: H-1 Visa
Status: H-1B approved
We have just received another H-1 approval for an end-client placement. There were two intervening vendors and the end-client declined to provide a letter stating that there is no requirement in law for them to provide any such letter. We had to get together convincing secondary evidence. I was highly doubtful we will get the approval, but we did. So, despite the January 8 memo from USCIS, there is life yet for consulting industry.
Immigration.com Sample Cases | Immigration.Com - Law Offices of Rajiv S. Khanna, PC (http://www.immigration.com/sample-cases)
/h-1-visa/another-h-1-approval-without-end-client-letter
Submitted by Rajiv S. Khanna on Jan 20th 2010, Modified on Jan 20th 2010
Category: H-1 Visa
Status: H-1B approved
We have just received another H-1 approval for an end-client placement. There were two intervening vendors and the end-client declined to provide a letter stating that there is no requirement in law for them to provide any such letter. We had to get together convincing secondary evidence. I was highly doubtful we will get the approval, but we did. So, despite the January 8 memo from USCIS, there is life yet for consulting industry.
Immigration.com Sample Cases | Immigration.Com - Law Offices of Rajiv S. Khanna, PC (http://www.immigration.com/sample-cases)
/h-1-visa/another-h-1-approval-without-end-client-letter
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
2011 Naruto vs. Sasuke -- Shippuden
JunRN
08-27 02:34 PM
I can't see any good reason why they would do that unless they have a system to allocate the applications to adjudicating staff by State or by Region. Do the Chinese cite any reasons why they feel that way?
more...
pswcil@yahoo.com
04-29 04:40 PM
Hi,
Entered into USA on H1: 06/2001
Change of Status to F1: 12/2001
Change of Status to H1: 10/2004
Labor Filed Substitution: 07/2007
Appeal: 11/2009 in process
I calculated my time in USA excluding time spent outside the country and my 6 years will end in June 2010. When my employer renewed H1 back in 2008 he simply claimed for 3 years and USCIS approved till 03/2011. But I read somewhere online that we have to calculate our time spent in the country and should not go by the date that is on our H1.
1. Does the change of status from H1 to F1 reset the H1 time period or do we have to consider that time period while calculating the 6 years
2. As my application (AAO) is pending I heard I will get a one year extension. The question I have is can I stay on my current H1 till 03/2011 or do I have to renew my H1?
Thanks
Entered into USA on H1: 06/2001
Change of Status to F1: 12/2001
Change of Status to H1: 10/2004
Labor Filed Substitution: 07/2007
Appeal: 11/2009 in process
I calculated my time in USA excluding time spent outside the country and my 6 years will end in June 2010. When my employer renewed H1 back in 2008 he simply claimed for 3 years and USCIS approved till 03/2011. But I read somewhere online that we have to calculate our time spent in the country and should not go by the date that is on our H1.
1. Does the change of status from H1 to F1 reset the H1 time period or do we have to consider that time period while calculating the 6 years
2. As my application (AAO) is pending I heard I will get a one year extension. The question I have is can I stay on my current H1 till 03/2011 or do I have to renew my H1?
Thanks
Blog Feeds
09-24 03:20 AM
From TPMMuckraker: Late Update: AILA spokesman George Tzamaras confirms to TPMmuckraker that, according to an extensive search of the group's membership database, no one from South Carolina by the name Joe Wilson or Addison Wilson has ever been a member.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/american-immigration-lawyers-association-confirms-joe-wilson-was-never-a-member.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/american-immigration-lawyers-association-confirms-joe-wilson-was-never-a-member.html)
more...
ItIsNotFunny
05-08 12:57 PM
visa bulletin is already out
EB2 India - 01JAN00
Multiple threads are already out!
Good morning :)
EB2 India - 01JAN00
Multiple threads are already out!
Good morning :)
2010 Naruto Sasuke Sakura Shikamaru
STAmisha
09-21 12:51 PM
My Receipt date of 140 is Jul 2 2007. Texas Service Center
Will my 140 be transferred to VSC? I heard that all TSC 140's will be traferrred to VSC (this center is pathetic )
Will my 140 be transferred to VSC? I heard that all TSC 140's will be traferrred to VSC (this center is pathetic )
more...
keerthisagar
09-21 10:36 AM
Bridge Collapses at Commonwealth Games (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/sports/22iht-GAMES.html?_r=1&hp)
hair Sakura vs Sasuke- Shippuuden
Comiccmadd
07-23 09:36 AM
hah cool characters
more...
psychman
02-08 08:49 PM
Hello. I am playing around with making a little app that allows me to draw a polygon shape and then determine how many rectangles can fit inside that shape. The rectangles only have two widths, but can be as long as needed.
It occurred to me that I might somehow be able to have that polygon shape act like a wrap panel and the rectangles inside would self-adjust based on the space provided. Two questions:
1) Is it possible to make a wrap panel with custom borders (not just rectangular)?
2) Is there an equivalent component, to the wrap panel, in Flash? If so, can that component have custom borders?
Thanks very much!
It occurred to me that I might somehow be able to have that polygon shape act like a wrap panel and the rectangles inside would self-adjust based on the space provided. Two questions:
1) Is it possible to make a wrap panel with custom borders (not just rectangular)?
2) Is there an equivalent component, to the wrap panel, in Flash? If so, can that component have custom borders?
Thanks very much!
hot Sasuke Vs. Sakura in Naruto
arihant
05-15 11:43 AM
CNN said last night that the President will address the nation about Immigration tonight ahead of the Senate picking up the bill again starting from tomorrow.
more...
house Naruto Vs Sasuke and Sakura Vs
zico123
06-14 07:50 PM
Domicile Certificate i.e. Certificate of nationality shows the date of birth.Can this be used instead of Birth Certificate?
I think a passport can be used to show the birth date.
I think a passport can be used to show the birth date.
tattoo Sakura Naruto Sasuke
go_guy123
03-08 09:38 AM
Angelo Paparelli on Dysfunctional Government: Granular and Possibly Grand Immigration Reform (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2011/03/granular-and-possibly-grand-immigration-reform.html)
Grand, Comprehensive , Dream or whatever name they give to the Mass Amnesty for undocumented, they are all non started and destint to doom.
It is the Democratic party's hostage taking of H1B/EB for these grand amnesty plans, that is the real problem.
Grand, Comprehensive , Dream or whatever name they give to the Mass Amnesty for undocumented, they are all non started and destint to doom.
It is the Democratic party's hostage taking of H1B/EB for these grand amnesty plans, that is the real problem.
more...
pictures Naruto Vs Sasuke and Sakura Vs
Blog Feeds
08-03 12:50 PM
As of July 24, 2009, approximately 44,900 H-1B cap-subject petitions have been received by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and counted towards the H-1B cap. Approximately 20,000 petitions qualifying for the advanced degree cap exemption have been filed. USCIS will continue to accept both cap-subject petitions and advanced degree petitions until a sufficient number of H-1B petitions have been received to reach the statutory limits. The H-1B program allows foreign nationals to work for their U.S. sponsor employer in a specialty occupation that requires theoretical or technical expertise in specialized fields. This may include scientists, engineers, and commuter programmers to name a few. The cap count for H-1B fiscal year 2010 is available at www.uscis.gov (http://www.uscis.gov).
Call us at 214-999-9999 and Kraft & Associates will answer your H-1B questions.
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Immigration-law-answers-blog/~3/q6etIgCz4yY/)
Call us at 214-999-9999 and Kraft & Associates will answer your H-1B questions.
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Immigration-law-answers-blog/~3/q6etIgCz4yY/)
dresses 2010 naruto,sasuke,sakura e
tonyHK12
03-24 08:46 AM
6 users are maybe same person owner/employee of others sites? They lose money for IV success. So hate IV.
Yes exactly. one of them is most likely the moderator of the forum. The rest are likely paid by someone, I won't be surprised it they're from other immigration forums or competing lawyer websites. Out of tens of thousands only these 6 consistently speak against IV.
I don't care them but they are influencing others to believe in them.
I believe same. Those minds are not only selfish but they are really really cruel, cunning and they don't deserve to be part of american dream.. All they care is their green card...
Yes I feel no one can be that cruel consistently, they have to be pros in bad PR. Its just a joke - I have been tracking :) one user create 5 IDs and use the same broken english over 3 months. Its also highly likely some of them are paid by that website itself
.
Yes exactly. one of them is most likely the moderator of the forum. The rest are likely paid by someone, I won't be surprised it they're from other immigration forums or competing lawyer websites. Out of tens of thousands only these 6 consistently speak against IV.
I don't care them but they are influencing others to believe in them.
I believe same. Those minds are not only selfish but they are really really cruel, cunning and they don't deserve to be part of american dream.. All they care is their green card...
Yes I feel no one can be that cruel consistently, they have to be pros in bad PR. Its just a joke - I have been tracking :) one user create 5 IDs and use the same broken english over 3 months. Its also highly likely some of them are paid by that website itself
.
more...
makeup NARUTO SAKURA SASUKE SHIPPUDEN
va_labor2002
07-17 10:30 AM
I see the following address in the I-485 form. But it is a PO Box address.
P O Box 87485
Lincoln NE 68501-7485
I think Fedex will not accept PO Box address. Is it true ? So, what is the correct address for sending I-485 and I-765 using Fedex Overnight ?
Please help me.
Thank you for your help,
P O Box 87485
Lincoln NE 68501-7485
I think Fedex will not accept PO Box address. Is it true ? So, what is the correct address for sending I-485 and I-765 using Fedex Overnight ?
Please help me.
Thank you for your help,
girlfriend Sakura Vs Sasuke - Cha
ns33
10-23 05:37 PM
Hi,
I tried to search for this and could not find anything.
When dealing with 485 portability using EAD (with approved I140),
what happens if your underlying LC is a location/region/state bound and you end up moving to out of that specified region.
Job duties/job code can stay similar with probably salary increase.
Does the location violation get equated to unequal/dissimilar job duties resulting in 485 denial?
Chances are that should I have to invoke AC21 portability(due to layoff or something alike), I'll be facing this so I just want to be prepared for possibilities.
Thanks for insights.
NS
PS: In other words: What will be considered violation or conditions for Similar job duties if job title and responsibilities stay same but other factors - i.e employer, location, salary cap changes.
I tried to search for this and could not find anything.
When dealing with 485 portability using EAD (with approved I140),
what happens if your underlying LC is a location/region/state bound and you end up moving to out of that specified region.
Job duties/job code can stay similar with probably salary increase.
Does the location violation get equated to unequal/dissimilar job duties resulting in 485 denial?
Chances are that should I have to invoke AC21 portability(due to layoff or something alike), I'll be facing this so I just want to be prepared for possibilities.
Thanks for insights.
NS
PS: In other words: What will be considered violation or conditions for Similar job duties if job title and responsibilities stay same but other factors - i.e employer, location, salary cap changes.
hairstyles NARUTO VS SASUKE SHIPPUDEN 3
waitin_toolong
07-19 09:26 PM
Interim EAD's are no longer an option since Sep 2006
In case of emergency travel it is possible to get AP from local office
But in case of extreme emergency like death in the family, funeral etc
In case of emergency travel it is possible to get AP from local office
But in case of extreme emergency like death in the family, funeral etc
gc_chahiye
09-20 05:31 AM
I am working for a MNC and I got L1 visa stamped. After marriage I got my H4 visa stamped.(After L1 stamping) But the Visa officials have not marked the L1 visa cancelled in the passport, does it mean that the Visa is still valid? Does that mean that i can still travel on my L1 visa?
If your L1 petition is still valid (not withdrawn by employer) and you intend to work for that employer (ie. fullfill all other L1 requirements) then yes, you can still travel on L1 and maintain L1 status in the US.
If your L1 petition is still valid (not withdrawn by employer) and you intend to work for that employer (ie. fullfill all other L1 requirements) then yes, you can still travel on L1 and maintain L1 status in the US.
Blog Feeds
11-01 01:10 AM
A Wall Street Journal story looks at the reasons behind the extraordinary drop in H-1B applications. Here's the money quote: Companies that use H-1B visas argue the market, rather than Congress, should dictate the number of visas issued. The fact that the 65,000-visa cap hasn't been reached this year shows that the market will temper demand when necessary, said Jenifer Verdery, director of work-force policy at Intel Corp., who represents a coalition of companies that use the visas. "Contrary to the claims of H-1B critics, if importing cheap labor were the goal of H-1B visa employers, these visas would have...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/10/slump-in-h1b-numbers-back-up-calls-for-tying-quota-to-market-demand.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/10/slump-in-h1b-numbers-back-up-calls-for-tying-quota-to-market-demand.html)
No comments:
Post a Comment