sanjay02
10-29 11:57 PM
You can keep extending the H1-B till your Green card is approved.
wallpaper Happy birthday to DongDong
Mayday
04-03 03:52 PM
As far as I know it does not matter what company profile is, it only matters what type of job they have and if they able to pay as required for the period of time they apply for.
DSLStart
08-22 09:24 AM
Today I got an SLUD on my pending 485 after almost more than a year. Last one was from July, 2008 (address change). Don't understand what exactly is going on. For RFEs are there usually SLUDs before? or just an hard LUD with message change? Anyone in same boat? :confused:
2011 Our Birthday Boy!
grinch
04-16 11:54 AM
Kaneda does look blurry.
more...
adnan_vijay
04-29 04:28 AM
Please help?
Any advice is much appriciated.
:(
Any advice is much appriciated.
:(
krithi
01-15 05:09 PM
I am currently working on EAD (thru 485), graduated in August 07, applying for H1B (first time) in April 08, my questions
1. Any effect on my AOS.
2. Can I start working without going ouf of the country once my H1B is approved on Oct 1st 2008.
1. Any effect on my AOS.
2. Can I start working without going ouf of the country once my H1B is approved on Oct 1st 2008.
more...
nshalady
08-25 12:11 AM
No. Wife's status change is independent of husband. H1 status of husband is not invalidated by wife's use of EAD.
Hi there!
I was reading some info abt EAD on this site and have come to know that Once H4 visa holders get their EAD's can work after getting SSN.But I read that If H4 visa holders start working as soon as they got EAD's.Does this invalidate H1 visa status if wife starts working on EAD.Please clarify my doubt.
Hi there!
I was reading some info abt EAD on this site and have come to know that Once H4 visa holders get their EAD's can work after getting SSN.But I read that If H4 visa holders start working as soon as they got EAD's.Does this invalidate H1 visa status if wife starts working on EAD.Please clarify my doubt.
2010 happy birthday pictures clip
webm
05-12 10:09 AM
Thanks to IV for making the multi year EAD/AP happen. Since USCIS might or might not announce this, I want to track when people start getting these multi year EAD/APs. Anyone in the IV community got one of these yet?
Not yet....you know they are very lazy to implement it esp. good one's that people are benefited..
Not yet....you know they are very lazy to implement it esp. good one's that people are benefited..
more...
Blog Feeds
07-30 06:20 AM
This is really major and thanks to reader gg for posting the link. The headlines are likely to be about the benefits to people out of status. The provisions stated early in the memocould benefit thousands, though I'm not sure it will help the vast majority of people out of status, though many, many would be helped. Mayorkas has "buried the lead" at the end of the memo when he discusses using "deferred enforced departure" to potentially help those who otherwise might qualify for the DREAM Act as well as long time residents (those here since before 1996 are specifically...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/leaked-memo-shows-mayorkas-pushing-for-major-immigration-policy-changes.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/leaked-memo-shows-mayorkas-pushing-for-major-immigration-policy-changes.html)
hair And a very happy birthday to
Raji09
07-09 07:19 PM
Can you please explain why it is restrictive compared to H1B?
Are you telling it because of 2 year home residency rule and getting waivers?
I am thinking of it because of my job continuation and spouse and family. If there is any alternative please suggest.
Thank you
Are you telling it because of 2 year home residency rule and getting waivers?
I am thinking of it because of my job continuation and spouse and family. If there is any alternative please suggest.
Thank you
more...
Macaca
05-25 08:10 PM
Making History, Reluctantly (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402069.html) In a Hill Anomaly, Pelosi Shepherds Iraq Bill She Opposes, By Jonathan Weisman (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jonathan+weisman/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, May 25, 2007
In public, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had done nothing to suppress her frustration as she assented to funding the Iraq war without a deadline to end it. But behind closed doors Wednesday night, she was all business.
With its members gathered in her office, she told the House's "Progressive Caucus" that she would vote against the war funding bill, but that she also had no choice but to facilitate its passage. Funds were running out for the troops, and she had promised to protect them. The Memorial Day break loomed, and without the money President Bush would have a week to hammer her party for taking a vacation while the Pentagon scrambled to keep its soldiers fed.
Was she agonized over the situation? Sure, said Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.), who attended the meeting. But "we all feel that way," he added. "I feel that way, too. Are we going to just walk away now, or are we going to continue this process, to keep the pressure on?"
Yesterday's vote to fund the war through September was a historical rarity: the passage of a bill opposed by the speaker of the House and a majority of the speaker's party.
Two years ago to the day, then-Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) violated the "Hastert rule" -- that only bills supported by a majority of the majority can come up -- by bringing up legislation to allow federal funding for stem cell research. The majority of the Republican majority opposed the law. He voted against it, but he knew it would never become law over President Bush's signature.
Over his objections and the opposition of most Republicans, Hastert did allow passage of campaign finance reform in 2002, but only because a petition drive was about to force the bill to the floor. The North American Free Trade Agreement passed in 1993, over the objections of most Democrats, who were then in the majority. But NAFTA did have the support of then-Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), as well as the Democratic president, Bill Clinton.
In contrast, the Iraq funding bill was not only opposed by the majority of House Democrats, it was also ardently opposed by the speaker and even the lawmaker who drafted it, Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.). And it is destined to become law.
"We don't relish bringing a package to the floor that we're not going to vote for," Obey conceded before last night's vote.
Pelosi's agonized decision put her in the company of Foley, who in 1991 brought to the floor the resolution authorizing the Persian Gulf War and then voted against it, and Thomas Brackett Reed, a speaker in the 1890s who voted against the annexation of Hawaii, and then against the Spanish-American War, but allowed both to go forward.
"To have the chairman and the speaker vote against a bill like this, I've never heard of it," Hastert said.
But while protesters outside the Capitol condemned what they saw as a capitulation, Democrats inside were remarkably understanding of their speaker's contortions.
Party leaders jury-rigged the votes yesterday to give all Democrats something to brag about. A parliamentary vote to bring the Iraq funding legislation to the floor included language demanding a showdown vote in September over further funding. A second vote allowed Democrats to vote in favor of funds for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery, agricultural drought relief and children's health insurance. Finally, the House got around to funding the war.
Republicans cried foul over what they saw as an abuse of the legislative system, but Democrats saw brilliance in the legerdemain. And with such contortions came more appreciation for the efforts Pelosi was making to fund the war in a fashion most palatable to angry Democrats.
"It was the responsible thing to do, and she's a responsible speaker," said Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.), who is personally close to Pelosi. "You can't just walk away."
In public, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had done nothing to suppress her frustration as she assented to funding the Iraq war without a deadline to end it. But behind closed doors Wednesday night, she was all business.
With its members gathered in her office, she told the House's "Progressive Caucus" that she would vote against the war funding bill, but that she also had no choice but to facilitate its passage. Funds were running out for the troops, and she had promised to protect them. The Memorial Day break loomed, and without the money President Bush would have a week to hammer her party for taking a vacation while the Pentagon scrambled to keep its soldiers fed.
Was she agonized over the situation? Sure, said Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.), who attended the meeting. But "we all feel that way," he added. "I feel that way, too. Are we going to just walk away now, or are we going to continue this process, to keep the pressure on?"
Yesterday's vote to fund the war through September was a historical rarity: the passage of a bill opposed by the speaker of the House and a majority of the speaker's party.
Two years ago to the day, then-Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) violated the "Hastert rule" -- that only bills supported by a majority of the majority can come up -- by bringing up legislation to allow federal funding for stem cell research. The majority of the Republican majority opposed the law. He voted against it, but he knew it would never become law over President Bush's signature.
Over his objections and the opposition of most Republicans, Hastert did allow passage of campaign finance reform in 2002, but only because a petition drive was about to force the bill to the floor. The North American Free Trade Agreement passed in 1993, over the objections of most Democrats, who were then in the majority. But NAFTA did have the support of then-Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), as well as the Democratic president, Bill Clinton.
In contrast, the Iraq funding bill was not only opposed by the majority of House Democrats, it was also ardently opposed by the speaker and even the lawmaker who drafted it, Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.). And it is destined to become law.
"We don't relish bringing a package to the floor that we're not going to vote for," Obey conceded before last night's vote.
Pelosi's agonized decision put her in the company of Foley, who in 1991 brought to the floor the resolution authorizing the Persian Gulf War and then voted against it, and Thomas Brackett Reed, a speaker in the 1890s who voted against the annexation of Hawaii, and then against the Spanish-American War, but allowed both to go forward.
"To have the chairman and the speaker vote against a bill like this, I've never heard of it," Hastert said.
But while protesters outside the Capitol condemned what they saw as a capitulation, Democrats inside were remarkably understanding of their speaker's contortions.
Party leaders jury-rigged the votes yesterday to give all Democrats something to brag about. A parliamentary vote to bring the Iraq funding legislation to the floor included language demanding a showdown vote in September over further funding. A second vote allowed Democrats to vote in favor of funds for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery, agricultural drought relief and children's health insurance. Finally, the House got around to funding the war.
Republicans cried foul over what they saw as an abuse of the legislative system, but Democrats saw brilliance in the legerdemain. And with such contortions came more appreciation for the efforts Pelosi was making to fund the war in a fashion most palatable to angry Democrats.
"It was the responsible thing to do, and she's a responsible speaker," said Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.), who is personally close to Pelosi. "You can't just walk away."
hot The irthday boy xx
pezz77
03-06 10:34 PM
I received my approval documents yesterday and today I noticed that my name is different from that displayed on my passport and previous H-1B approval.
I have a two-part last name and only the first part is displayed. Will this become an issue? The attorney tried to brush it off and said that the name was the same as the one on the petition (which of course he filled, so I don't know why he used this as an excuse).
I'd like to know if I need to do something about it. I don't want to have problems when exciting the country.
Any advice will be appreciated.
I have a two-part last name and only the first part is displayed. Will this become an issue? The attorney tried to brush it off and said that the name was the same as the one on the petition (which of course he filled, so I don't know why he used this as an excuse).
I'd like to know if I need to do something about it. I don't want to have problems when exciting the country.
Any advice will be appreciated.
more...
house Happy Happy Birthday
gc_on_demand
04-21 02:35 PM
Hello
My friend is in USA on F1 visa and her wife and daughter denined visa twice with reason that my friend is studying here not working.
Even he is not offering sponsership to her wife and kids. His in laws are sponsering both of them. Now he wants to invite them on his graduation day. Can he get a letter from local senator with F1 visa status ? or is that only for people who pays taxes . ( H1b or l1b ) ?
Please advise.
thanks
My friend is in USA on F1 visa and her wife and daughter denined visa twice with reason that my friend is studying here not working.
Even he is not offering sponsership to her wife and kids. His in laws are sponsering both of them. Now he wants to invite them on his graduation day. Can he get a letter from local senator with F1 visa status ? or is that only for people who pays taxes . ( H1b or l1b ) ?
Please advise.
thanks
tattoo Shan Rae, the irthday boy
gchope07
07-17 07:25 PM
Is it from receipt date based on receipt notice OR filing date( actual date when USCIS received your 485 package)?
more...
pictures Pay for The Birthday Boy
Macaca
07-11 08:13 AM
Unpopular Congress enduring tough times (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0923700020070710) By Steve Holland Reuters, Jul 10, 2007
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - These are tough times for the Democratic-led U.S. Congress, where partisan battles have led to little progress on big issues and have made lawmakers collectively less popular than President George W. Bush.
Congress, typically never all that popular to begin with, starts the second half of 2007 with an anemic job approval rating of about 25 percent, down from 43 percent in January, with one Gallup poll ranking lawmakers at 14 percent.
Experts attribute the woeful rankings to an inability to force a change in direction in Iraq, the priority Democrats campaigned on to gain power in both the House of Representatives and the Senate in last November's elections.
But that is not all. There has been little to show on other priorities, including a change in Social Security and other entitlement programs that will run out of money in the years ahead, in addition to overhauling a health care system that has left millions uninsured and a broken immigration policy.
"I think Americans were expecting a great deal from the new Congress, and Congress has always been held in low esteem, but Congress really hasn't delivered on what it promised, especially on Iraq," said Paul Light, a congressional expert who is a professor at New York University.
Democrats in charge of Congress insist they have made progress on several issues, like increasing the minimum hourly wage and getting money for victims of the 2005 Katrina hurricane. They blame the Republican minority for a failure on others such as immigration, greater energy independence, and on negotiation of lower-priced drugs for Medicare.
"I'm not really much for polls," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "We're going to continue doing what we think is the right thing for the American public in spite of a White House and the Republicans who are stalling every step of the way."
IRAQ DEBATE
Democrats drew a line in the sand over Iraq in the spring, using a $100 billion war spending bill to try to force Bush to accept a troop withdrawal date.
The effort failed miserably, with Bush finally getting what he wanted with no strings attached, and the White House saw the fractious debate as taking time away from work on other priorities.
"They've proven that they're not capable of taking on big issues," an administration official said.
Democrats beg to differ, pointing out that under their stewardship the Congress has resumed its traditional watchdog role over an administration they feel got off scot-free under Republican leadership.
"I would say in the first six months, gauging how things operate here from the majority, that we had some important work to do," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California. "We had to drain the swamp. We had to create the oversight."
With American patience running thin over the Iraq war and casualties rising, Democrats may eventually force a change in direction in the unpopular war, an effort being renewed this week on Capitol Hill.
The Iraq situation has so infuriated the Democratic left that Cindy Sheehan, the California liberal who began a long protest against Bush after her soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq, is talking about running against Pelosi in 2008.
"I think the decline in support (for Congress) since the Democrats took over reflects in part the unhappiness of the base in the inability of Democrats to immediately stop the war in Iraq," said Thomas Mann, a congressional expert at the Brookings Institution.
The analysts say Congress' low poll numbers also reflect an altogether negative mood among Americans who are tired of the war, fed up with rising gasoline prices and worried about their jobs in a changing economy.
But how all this plays out in the 2008 election is hard to say. Incumbent lawmakers, while collectively held in low esteem, rarely fail to win re-election.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - These are tough times for the Democratic-led U.S. Congress, where partisan battles have led to little progress on big issues and have made lawmakers collectively less popular than President George W. Bush.
Congress, typically never all that popular to begin with, starts the second half of 2007 with an anemic job approval rating of about 25 percent, down from 43 percent in January, with one Gallup poll ranking lawmakers at 14 percent.
Experts attribute the woeful rankings to an inability to force a change in direction in Iraq, the priority Democrats campaigned on to gain power in both the House of Representatives and the Senate in last November's elections.
But that is not all. There has been little to show on other priorities, including a change in Social Security and other entitlement programs that will run out of money in the years ahead, in addition to overhauling a health care system that has left millions uninsured and a broken immigration policy.
"I think Americans were expecting a great deal from the new Congress, and Congress has always been held in low esteem, but Congress really hasn't delivered on what it promised, especially on Iraq," said Paul Light, a congressional expert who is a professor at New York University.
Democrats in charge of Congress insist they have made progress on several issues, like increasing the minimum hourly wage and getting money for victims of the 2005 Katrina hurricane. They blame the Republican minority for a failure on others such as immigration, greater energy independence, and on negotiation of lower-priced drugs for Medicare.
"I'm not really much for polls," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "We're going to continue doing what we think is the right thing for the American public in spite of a White House and the Republicans who are stalling every step of the way."
IRAQ DEBATE
Democrats drew a line in the sand over Iraq in the spring, using a $100 billion war spending bill to try to force Bush to accept a troop withdrawal date.
The effort failed miserably, with Bush finally getting what he wanted with no strings attached, and the White House saw the fractious debate as taking time away from work on other priorities.
"They've proven that they're not capable of taking on big issues," an administration official said.
Democrats beg to differ, pointing out that under their stewardship the Congress has resumed its traditional watchdog role over an administration they feel got off scot-free under Republican leadership.
"I would say in the first six months, gauging how things operate here from the majority, that we had some important work to do," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California. "We had to drain the swamp. We had to create the oversight."
With American patience running thin over the Iraq war and casualties rising, Democrats may eventually force a change in direction in the unpopular war, an effort being renewed this week on Capitol Hill.
The Iraq situation has so infuriated the Democratic left that Cindy Sheehan, the California liberal who began a long protest against Bush after her soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq, is talking about running against Pelosi in 2008.
"I think the decline in support (for Congress) since the Democrats took over reflects in part the unhappiness of the base in the inability of Democrats to immediately stop the war in Iraq," said Thomas Mann, a congressional expert at the Brookings Institution.
The analysts say Congress' low poll numbers also reflect an altogether negative mood among Americans who are tired of the war, fed up with rising gasoline prices and worried about their jobs in a changing economy.
But how all this plays out in the 2008 election is hard to say. Incumbent lawmakers, while collectively held in low esteem, rarely fail to win re-election.
dresses Tags: happy birthday boy
Blog Feeds
03-05 06:20 PM
H1B Visa Lawyer Blog Has Just Posted the Following:
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Processing Times were released on March 2, 2010 with processing dates as of March 1, 2010.
If you filed an appeal, please review the links below to determine the applicable processing time associated with your particular case.
Administrative Appeals Office (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=31417)
The current processing time for an I-129 H-1B Appeal is 13 months. The current processing time for an I-140 EB2 Appeal for an Advanced Degree Professional is 24 months; for an I-140EB3 Appeal for a Skilled or Professional Worker is 24 months. Most other cases are within USCIS's processing time goal of 6 months or less.
More... (http://www.h1bvisalawyerblog.com/2010/03/updated_administrative_appeals_5.html)
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Processing Times were released on March 2, 2010 with processing dates as of March 1, 2010.
If you filed an appeal, please review the links below to determine the applicable processing time associated with your particular case.
Administrative Appeals Office (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=31417)
The current processing time for an I-129 H-1B Appeal is 13 months. The current processing time for an I-140 EB2 Appeal for an Advanced Degree Professional is 24 months; for an I-140EB3 Appeal for a Skilled or Professional Worker is 24 months. Most other cases are within USCIS's processing time goal of 6 months or less.
More... (http://www.h1bvisalawyerblog.com/2010/03/updated_administrative_appeals_5.html)
more...
makeup Pay for The Birthday Boy
smartimss
10-24 08:06 AM
Two friends of mine were in the same situation.
In both cases dependent children were approved first, then primary applicant
(in one case in a 6 month after his dependent)
Thank you for your information neoklaus.
In both cases dependent children were approved first, then primary applicant
(in one case in a 6 month after his dependent)
Thank you for your information neoklaus.
girlfriend Happy Birthday, B. Happy happy
rkgc
03-31 12:26 PM
Hi,
I got my PERM labor approved yesterday, for applying I-140 were can I find the processing dates for I-140? I mean specific to Country? Because, if I go to https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC the processing time for "Skilled worker or professional" is April, 1 2008, does this date apply for all? Thanks in advance.
Thanks,
RK
I got my PERM labor approved yesterday, for applying I-140 were can I find the processing dates for I-140? I mean specific to Country? Because, if I go to https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC the processing time for "Skilled worker or professional" is April, 1 2008, does this date apply for all? Thanks in advance.
Thanks,
RK
hairstyles Pay for The Birthday Boy
getready4gc
09-09 06:49 PM
I have applied EAD for my wife... while applying I misspelt my wife's first name and I haven't selected any service center, seems it automatically choosen NSC... but my 485 applied under TSC and the dates here are best like May 20, 2008 and the NBC is Mar 31, 2008...
How can I correct the name, can I do it at the time of finger print?
How can I change the service center?
I already sent email to EAD Deptt... In the meanwhile, I wd like to find from many experienced people like you...
Thanks
How can I correct the name, can I do it at the time of finger print?
How can I change the service center?
I already sent email to EAD Deptt... In the meanwhile, I wd like to find from many experienced people like you...
Thanks
chrisclick
08-22 08:47 AM
Agree with blazes.... A lime for LimeLine ;)
vin13
07-22 10:10 PM
Hey, U are not alone. looks like we are two guys out here in South Dakota.:)
I am on EB-2. Priority date Apr 2005. Sent 485 application last week.
I am on EB-2. Priority date Apr 2005. Sent 485 application last week.
