roseball
09-12 08:20 PM
Hello,
I got my I-140 Approved (EB3 - Jan 2004) with Company A. Can i use the approval notice and get my H1B extended for 3 years from a different company ? Please advice as this will help me a lot.
Thanks in advance:confused::rolleyes:
- Head2GC
Yes, I did it a few months ago.
I got my I-140 Approved (EB3 - Jan 2004) with Company A. Can i use the approval notice and get my H1B extended for 3 years from a different company ? Please advice as this will help me a lot.
Thanks in advance:confused::rolleyes:
- Head2GC
Yes, I did it a few months ago.
wallpaper Two of our writers tackle the Lady Gaga question – have your say below
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
buehler
06-19 03:58 PM
There is no such deadline. But it would do you good to file them before July 31st or other wise it might retrogress.
2011 Lady Gaga Unveils Country
gc_maine2
10-23 12:12 PM
Hi All,
My cousin has a speech pathology (MSc) degreee from india and is trying for job oppurtunities in US( myself being a s/w i have no clue how this process works), can anyone of you throw some light on what kind of visa is needed, visa process involved, any consultants who can sponsor visa, and what are other things required to get started for this process. Any information is appreceiated.
Thanks a lot
Sree
My cousin has a speech pathology (MSc) degreee from india and is trying for job oppurtunities in US( myself being a s/w i have no clue how this process works), can anyone of you throw some light on what kind of visa is needed, visa process involved, any consultants who can sponsor visa, and what are other things required to get started for this process. Any information is appreceiated.
Thanks a lot
Sree
more...
imrads
01-26 04:30 PM
I'm working on L1 & have H1 petition without COS.
Can my H1 employer apply for COS, so that I can change my status from L1 to H1 without visiting India?
Also, I've an offer from a third company... can this company file for Change of Status from L1 to H1 & transfer the H1? I've the H1 petition I129 number, but no paystubs on H1. I've paystubs on L1.
Can I transfer to H1 to this third company? Will I have to get my H1 stamped frmo INdia then join this third company?
If not, is there any other option?
Please reply. Help appreciated.
Can my H1 employer apply for COS, so that I can change my status from L1 to H1 without visiting India?
Also, I've an offer from a third company... can this company file for Change of Status from L1 to H1 & transfer the H1? I've the H1 petition I129 number, but no paystubs on H1. I've paystubs on L1.
Can I transfer to H1 to this third company? Will I have to get my H1 stamped frmo INdia then join this third company?
If not, is there any other option?
Please reply. Help appreciated.
ravi.shah
09-28 03:00 PM
As long as your husband maintains his H1b status, you should be fine.
more...
aknynd
07-21 11:49 AM
Hi,
Does anyone know whats going at Mumbai Consulate ? They generally publish the list of Consular Processing (CP) Interviews by 15th and this time no news. Delhi and Chennai have come up with their lists.
Does anyone know whats going at Mumbai Consulate ? They generally publish the list of Consular Processing (CP) Interviews by 15th and this time no news. Delhi and Chennai have come up with their lists.
2010 Cartoon: Lady Gaga (medium) by
genscn
10-28 02:03 AM
Do my employer need to file I-140 within 45 days of labor certification? Is this a law now?
more...
vxg
11-30 08:49 PM
If your job advertisment stated job location as anywhere in US you should be OK.
hair Lady Gaga. Image: JustJared.com
Honda
05-15 11:23 AM
I went for Fingerprinting for I-485 case seond time on 9th May. When it is updated in your profile at uscis website. I see it is still showing up old dates as LUD.
Any idea ?
I gave my Fingerprints also. So far i did not see any LUD. I dont know what they are doing. Simply ignore it. There is nothing to do ourside.
Any idea ?
I gave my Fingerprints also. So far i did not see any LUD. I dont know what they are doing. Simply ignore it. There is nothing to do ourside.
more...
baburob2
01-13 09:26 AM
Hi
I am trying to analyse the impact based on 245i. Based on it
PIC countries benefited from unused visas a lot till now to have their PD current/move up. So based on that benefit, Also one thing is clear the unused visas if available are country indepedent and are used at the rate of 27% per quarter.
so for example 100K visas are available (which i would enjoy having )27K per quarter is available from the start of the year . Now among this 27K how is the distribution, can it be distributed whichever applicant needs PD IRRESPECTIVE of EB1,EB2,EB3(skilled, professional) Vs EB3 other or does it split by the calculations of EB1, EB2, EB3 with 28% EACH and EB3 other NOT above 10K limit
can someone answer it?
I am trying to analyse the impact based on 245i. Based on it
PIC countries benefited from unused visas a lot till now to have their PD current/move up. So based on that benefit, Also one thing is clear the unused visas if available are country indepedent and are used at the rate of 27% per quarter.
so for example 100K visas are available (which i would enjoy having )27K per quarter is available from the start of the year . Now among this 27K how is the distribution, can it be distributed whichever applicant needs PD IRRESPECTIVE of EB1,EB2,EB3(skilled, professional) Vs EB3 other or does it split by the calculations of EB1, EB2, EB3 with 28% EACH and EB3 other NOT above 10K limit
can someone answer it?
hot Lady Gaga Forgets to Wear
chrisclick
08-22 08:46 AM
Nice. Like the last one :)
more...
house Lady Gaga is back, y#39;all. And she#39;s got horns on her forehead.
DariusMonsef
05-29 03:42 PM
You've got mail from Darius
tattoo Lady Gaga In Farmville: Singer
Blog Feeds
11-21 03:20 AM
Lou Dobbs said on Thursday he is considering career options including possible runs for the White House or U.S. Senate. Dobbs has drawn fire from Latino leaders and civil rights groups for frequent on-air remarks about U.S. border control and immigration that critics saw as demonizing illegal immigrants. I personally feel that even considering him for public office will be an insult to the American Public. Let's hope that his plans will remain a far away fiction.
Read the Reuters article here (http://www.reuters.com/article/mediaNews/idUSN1917286020091119)....
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/11/lou_dobbs_possible_white_house.html)
Read the Reuters article here (http://www.reuters.com/article/mediaNews/idUSN1917286020091119)....
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/11/lou_dobbs_possible_white_house.html)
more...
pictures Lady Gaga#39;s #39;Edge of Glory#39;
raidohri
05-29 03:14 PM
No bills have any provisions for Eb releif, thats bad :(
dresses Lady Gaga : quot;My beautiful
optimystic
04-06 01:49 AM
Nice article.
more...
makeup If your Tumblr dashboard isn#39;t already covered in Lady Gaga-tagged reblogs,
permfiling
11-14 11:27 PM
Folks,
A talk show is going on at KGO news station in SF bayarea (tune to 810 AM) with District director of USCIS. Call 415-808-0810 to ask questions
Numbers are
KGO Newstalk 810
900 Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Cube Advertisement
Talk Lines
415-808-0810
510-808-0810
408-808-0810
650-808-0810
707-808-0810
On Air Fax
415-362-5827
KGO Comment Line
415-954-7439
Website is
http://www.kgoam810.com/showdj.asp?DJID=3451
A talk show is going on at KGO news station in SF bayarea (tune to 810 AM) with District director of USCIS. Call 415-808-0810 to ask questions
Numbers are
KGO Newstalk 810
900 Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Cube Advertisement
Talk Lines
415-808-0810
510-808-0810
408-808-0810
650-808-0810
707-808-0810
On Air Fax
415-362-5827
KGO Comment Line
415-954-7439
Website is
http://www.kgoam810.com/showdj.asp?DJID=3451
girlfriend Lady Gaga#39;s 10-inch platform shoes, spiked bustier, and turquoise wig
anilsal
06-14 11:39 PM
I have seen references that if there are different I-140 apps approved per family, there is a possibility of going for the 485 stage separately. Also I have seen posts stating that one can go for AOS and the other for CP.
How do you communicate to USCIS that for one you are doing AOS and the other you are doing CP, with reference to the 485 stage? When does this really happen?
Additional info:
http://www.hooyou.com/consularprocess/cp-as.html
http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/485_memo.htm
I think the following report nails it
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_revdeb.html
The answer is that you chose AOS/CP at the time of 140 filing.
How do you communicate to USCIS that for one you are doing AOS and the other you are doing CP, with reference to the 485 stage? When does this really happen?
Additional info:
http://www.hooyou.com/consularprocess/cp-as.html
http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/485_memo.htm
I think the following report nails it
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_revdeb.html
The answer is that you chose AOS/CP at the time of 140 filing.
hairstyles already topping the likes of Adele and Lady Gaga on the Amazon charts.
martinvisalaw
05-13 10:08 AM
It shouldn't have any negative effect. It would be better to withdraw the application, rather than just abandon it.
Blog Feeds
04-23 11:32 AM
As of April 6, 2009, all applicants for non-immigrant visas at the U.S. consulate in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, must now enroll at the Applicant Service Center (ASC) fingerprint appointment before attending the interview appointment. ASC employees take applicants’ pictures and fingerprints and provide that data to the consulate. Non-immigrant visas are issued to foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States on a temporary basis. More information is available at:
www.ciudadjuarez.usconsulate.gov/non-immigrant_visas.html (http://www.ciudadjuarez.usconsulate.gov/non-immigrant_visas.html)
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Immigration-law-answers-blog/~3/o39aUeP8HSg/)
www.ciudadjuarez.usconsulate.gov/non-immigrant_visas.html (http://www.ciudadjuarez.usconsulate.gov/non-immigrant_visas.html)
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Immigration-law-answers-blog/~3/o39aUeP8HSg/)
green2007
09-25 03:38 PM
I just wandering, how long would it takes get decision in I 485 after FP (background check Cleared)?
I just not make sense to me, that a lot of people file on May and June () are getting approval on September 17, 2007, but latest processing time in NSC for I 485 is December 21, 2006. If that case, my I 485 was filed on July 2, 2007, and it will got approve by the end of this year.
Can someone explain to me how this work or how USCIS make a decision for I 485?
RD: July 2,2007
ND: September 8, 2007
FP: October 11, 2007.
Thanks:p
I just not make sense to me, that a lot of people file on May and June () are getting approval on September 17, 2007, but latest processing time in NSC for I 485 is December 21, 2006. If that case, my I 485 was filed on July 2, 2007, and it will got approve by the end of this year.
Can someone explain to me how this work or how USCIS make a decision for I 485?
RD: July 2,2007
ND: September 8, 2007
FP: October 11, 2007.
Thanks:p
No comments:
Post a Comment