Blog Feeds
04-05 09:30 AM
USCIS has not extended its temporary accommodation for delays in the labor condition application (LCA) process. Earlier, USCIS agreed to accept H-1B petitions without a certified LCA, in certain situations, for a limited time. This exception was available from November 5, 2009 to March 9, 2010. The USCIS has declined to extend this exception. Accordingly, all H-1B petitions must be filed with the certified LCA otherwise USCIS will deny the H-1B petition or extension.
Hence, it again is necessary to have an Approved LCA in place for the proper location at the time of the H-1B filing. The reason the exception was not extended is that the DOL assured USCIS that LCAs are being processed within the required seven-day processing time. The DOL, in fact, stated that LCAs are being processed within four to five days which is in fact true as well. It is our suggestion to plan accordingly.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/03/lca_needs_to_be_certified_agai.html)
Hence, it again is necessary to have an Approved LCA in place for the proper location at the time of the H-1B filing. The reason the exception was not extended is that the DOL assured USCIS that LCAs are being processed within the required seven-day processing time. The DOL, in fact, stated that LCAs are being processed within four to five days which is in fact true as well. It is our suggestion to plan accordingly.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/03/lca_needs_to_be_certified_agai.html)
wallpaper 2face amp; D#39;Banj score 2011 BET
kosars
09-12 02:36 PM
Hi,
I have applied for I-140 in Oct 2006 and hvn't recd I-140 yet (Nebraska)
My 485/EAD checks got encashed today. My questions is do I need I-140 before FP or EAD card.
thanx
RJ
I donot think you need I140 approved for FP or EAD
I have applied for I-140 in Oct 2006 and hvn't recd I-140 yet (Nebraska)
My 485/EAD checks got encashed today. My questions is do I need I-140 before FP or EAD card.
thanx
RJ
I donot think you need I140 approved for FP or EAD
IV2007
09-18 10:02 AM
As the title says, can I change from AOS to CP even though my PD is not current.
Will the consulate process my case even if the PD is not current ?
I guess, they should depending on the number of applications at the consulate.
Please let me know whether I should take this route.
Well my PD is Feb 2007 (EB2) so I was thinking of this route rather than wait for endless years in this mess :(
Thanks in Advance
Will the consulate process my case even if the PD is not current ?
I guess, they should depending on the number of applications at the consulate.
Please let me know whether I should take this route.
Well my PD is Feb 2007 (EB2) so I was thinking of this route rather than wait for endless years in this mess :(
Thanks in Advance
2011 The 2011 BET Awards will be
Jaime
06-01 03:27 AM
Good morning and thank you for reading my message and considering my question
My attorney has filed an appeal with DOL regarding my prevailing wage, which my state workforce commission rejected (deeming it too low). We were told that we should expect a response from DOL in about 3 weeks, but it has now been close to 10 weeks and we have received no response yet. The attorney is checking with DOL weekly but there has been no response thus far. Is this normal? How long can I expect to wait for a response? Thank you very much in advance for any guidance!
My attorney has filed an appeal with DOL regarding my prevailing wage, which my state workforce commission rejected (deeming it too low). We were told that we should expect a response from DOL in about 3 weeks, but it has now been close to 10 weeks and we have received no response yet. The attorney is checking with DOL weekly but there has been no response thus far. Is this normal? How long can I expect to wait for a response? Thank you very much in advance for any guidance!
more...
ssksubash
05-04 12:32 PM
Thank you
chanduv23
10-30 11:29 AM
Great pics, more to follow.
Here are some from mpadapa
http://www2.snapfish.com/share/p=967281193634848895/l=317986840/g=97458101/otsc=SYE/otsi=SALB
Here are some from mpadapa
http://www2.snapfish.com/share/p=967281193634848895/l=317986840/g=97458101/otsc=SYE/otsi=SALB
more...
kiranraheja
10-29 05:48 AM
I recently got my I797 approved (on Oct 19) but, the USCIS denied my extension of stay, and I need to go for stamping in Chennai (as per I797). My question:
1. Can I attend the interview in Canada/Hyderabad consulate instead of Chennai. Company attorney said that should be ok and filing I824 for change of consulate would take long.
In case you wanted to know more details about my case:
-Possess I797 from Employer A until Nov13, 2009.
-Filed for H1b extension with Employer B in Feb, denied in Jun15. payroll with Emp B Feb onwards.
-Re-filed for extn with Emp B in Aug4 finally approved on Oct19 but denied extn of stay.
1. Can I attend the interview in Canada/Hyderabad consulate instead of Chennai. Company attorney said that should be ok and filing I824 for change of consulate would take long.
In case you wanted to know more details about my case:
-Possess I797 from Employer A until Nov13, 2009.
-Filed for H1b extension with Employer B in Feb, denied in Jun15. payroll with Emp B Feb onwards.
-Re-filed for extn with Emp B in Aug4 finally approved on Oct19 but denied extn of stay.
2010 Bet Awards Tickets 2010
Blog Feeds
07-10 12:10 PM
General Motors emerged from bankruptcy today and promises it is the beginning of a new age for America's leading car manufacturer. Canadian-born Ray Young, the child of Chinese immigrants, is one of the folks leading GM to what will hopefully be a return to profitability. Young was interviewed by CNBC this morning and rightfully noted that every product GM launches must be a winner if the company is going to succeed. Young also indicated that GM is planning on having an initial public offering of new shares in the next few months in order to repay loans to taxpayers. GM...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/immigrant-of-the-day-ray-young-gm-cfo.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/immigrant-of-the-day-ray-young-gm-cfo.html)
more...
chanduv23
09-14 12:29 PM
For some known/unknown reason you may have decided not to do this. But lateron, you want to change your mind - but then you want to fight your desire - because you want to maintain your earlier decision and be strong on your earlier decision.
Please follow your heart and change your attitude. We at IV are your friends, there has been a lot of investement and strategy and planning.
Yes, we want you to realise - stop thinking and start acting
Please follow your heart and change your attitude. We at IV are your friends, there has been a lot of investement and strategy and planning.
Yes, we want you to realise - stop thinking and start acting
hair Wayne Lead 2011 BET Awards
Macaca
02-17 04:54 PM
Will post something 1.
more...
anagavel
02-24 06:32 AM
Hello Everyone,
I have filed my H1B in 2008 & the status is still pending. So can I apply for another H1B in 2009?
Please Help me in this regard by giving your valuable inputs!
I have filed my H1B in 2008 & the status is still pending. So can I apply for another H1B in 2009?
Please Help me in this regard by giving your valuable inputs!
hot 2011 BET Awards Nominees
Lmason
08-02 05:44 AM
i like it
more...
house 2011 BET Awards Nominees!
mygcstory
07-16 11:11 PM
Hi,
I have an approved labor, H1 Visa stamp still valid 2.5 years more. I will be applying for I140/485 once this debacle settles.
Can any one tell me, what are the consequences of leaving the US for a weeks vacation in India, while the application is in progress? Some say it is abandoning the application.....Would anyone know
Also, my wife is now on a B1. When I add her name to the 140/485 and she comes back as an H4, will it cause issues
Thanks for taking the time
-GC
I have an approved labor, H1 Visa stamp still valid 2.5 years more. I will be applying for I140/485 once this debacle settles.
Can any one tell me, what are the consequences of leaving the US for a weeks vacation in India, while the application is in progress? Some say it is abandoning the application.....Would anyone know
Also, my wife is now on a B1. When I add her name to the 140/485 and she comes back as an H4, will it cause issues
Thanks for taking the time
-GC
tattoo house The 2011 BET Awards will
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)
more...
pictures Cassie 2010 Bet Awards
glus
11-02 09:27 AM
I130 petition shows an "immigrant intent" so that could come up as a ground of not allowing a person into the U.S. on a purely non-immigrant visa. I would suggest to speak to an attorney.
dresses for the 2011 BET Awards
gcdedo
06-26 04:09 PM
Guys ..,check this out..
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/14905516.htm
It might be time to ride on this boat..
Best Luck
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/14905516.htm
It might be time to ride on this boat..
Best Luck
more...
makeup And Your 2011 BET Award
black_logs
02-01 12:04 PM
Just a reminder. We are having this conference call today
girlfriend 2011 BET Awards Nominees
SlowRoasted
05-01 10:13 PM
nice, i knew a matrix one was coming eventually.
hairstyles for the 2011 BET Awards,
vinabath
04-06 12:06 AM
Iinteresting article:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1008366#PaperDownload
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1008366#PaperDownload
Macaca
07-22 05:33 PM
For Real Drama, Senate Should Engage In a True Filibuster (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_8/ornstein/19415-1.html) By Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute, July 18, 2007
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
bobadam
08-04 09:54 PM
I want to know whether I can legally open some business in USA. A sole proprietorship is the simplest business format in USA. I am currently in F1(OPT) visa and will be H1B visa sometime later. Whether F1(OPT) and H1B visa holder can legally open sole proprietorship in USA?
My attorney told the foreigner without Green Card can open business in USA but can't get paid. The sole proprietorship count all business profit/loss as individual income/loss for tax. (Form 1040 Sch C) I am afraid this is not legal for my current visa status.
Anyone here has opened business in USA without a Green Card legally? If yes, could you please share with us which type of company you opened? (Inc, LLP, or ...?)
Thank you very much!
My attorney told the foreigner without Green Card can open business in USA but can't get paid. The sole proprietorship count all business profit/loss as individual income/loss for tax. (Form 1040 Sch C) I am afraid this is not legal for my current visa status.
Anyone here has opened business in USA without a Green Card legally? If yes, could you please share with us which type of company you opened? (Inc, LLP, or ...?)
Thank you very much!
No comments:
Post a Comment