sundevil
03-11 05:48 PM
It does not become any less fraudulent if the employer participates in it. You are applying for a Green Card sponsored by an employer saying that employer needs you, without ever intending to work for them once you get it. Don't you see it. Its fraud.
This is a very subjective question of intent? If the employer has no problem and willing to support the petition and a job offer when the RFE arrives, how will the UCSIS ever determine intent.
Lets assume the greencard is approved and can it be revoked if i never work for the employer.
And will the fac that i worked for them in the past and resigned before filing a I 14o be a negative factor for adjudication.
This is a very subjective question of intent? If the employer has no problem and willing to support the petition and a job offer when the RFE arrives, how will the UCSIS ever determine intent.
Lets assume the greencard is approved and can it be revoked if i never work for the employer.
And will the fac that i worked for them in the past and resigned before filing a I 14o be a negative factor for adjudication.
wallpaper Williams Tim Cahill Dwayne
mbartosik
01-30 04:19 PM
Tomorrow we will have something more substantial to release.
I would recommend that tomorrow when we release this that people phone up the local media, speaking with someone is better than email.
I would recommend that tomorrow when we release this that people phone up the local media, speaking with someone is better than email.
sunny1000
06-11 05:35 PM
Is there reason you say that I cannot port the PD ...? Please explain.
Arun
I should have been clearer in my post. I meant the I-140 itself and not the PD. Please ignore mine as there are better answers. Thanks.
Arun
I should have been clearer in my post. I meant the I-140 itself and not the PD. Please ignore mine as there are better answers. Thanks.
2011 tim cahill tattoo. Treasurer Tim Cahill is; Treasurer Tim Cahill is. topgunn
belmontboy
07-31 01:04 PM
I would like to know what are the primary reasons why employers revokes approved I-140 after invoking AC21 after 180 days.
a. I think one of the reason is Labor substitution. If they want to use it for someone else. Now that this is eliminated, I think there will be minimal chances of revocation in future.
b. Do big companies like Infy, Wipro do this?
c. They could revoke because of problems between employer and employees...I think we need to be patient and work this out..
Please reply with ur inputs.
Wipro doesnot sponsor GC's that much.
a. I think one of the reason is Labor substitution. If they want to use it for someone else. Now that this is eliminated, I think there will be minimal chances of revocation in future.
b. Do big companies like Infy, Wipro do this?
c. They could revoke because of problems between employer and employees...I think we need to be patient and work this out..
Please reply with ur inputs.
Wipro doesnot sponsor GC's that much.
more...
GCwaitforever
07-14 09:59 AM
If the provision to let people apply for I-485 without current PD passes, that takes away some pain related to waiting. Nobody can predict when EB3 will become current worldwide or country specific.
andycool
01-27 07:13 AM
Can he add an amendment to divide spillover equally between EB2 and EB3 India. This will help a lot.
Even if its only for Phd's ....40,000 More Visas will be available for EB2 and EB3
i think EB2 Back log will be wiped away just in 1 year and fall down will be there for EB3.
Even if its only for Phd's ....40,000 More Visas will be available for EB2 and EB3
i think EB2 Back log will be wiped away just in 1 year and fall down will be there for EB3.
more...
BMS1
08-21 12:04 PM
Do you still need to go for an interview? I just wanted to know and what kind of questions they ask during the interview. You could provide us with very helpful tips and what to expect.
Interview is not mandatory for I485. Only a small percentage gets the interview call.
Interview is not mandatory for I485. Only a small percentage gets the interview call.
2010 However, Tim Cahill seems
gc_check
02-11 12:14 PM
Thanks for the updates. There seems to be something happening at the least. Hopefully some thing works out to get the mess cleared.
more...
GC092003
04-18 12:46 PM
I just called and found out that System at Texas Center has some problem. I confirmed my petition. I was told by immigration officer that they are processing for I-140, January 2006 right now.
hair a charity pick,
haider420
06-12 07:54 AM
hello,
were u able to find more information on applying for H1B through non-profit? can you send me the links? thanks.
were u able to find more information on applying for H1B through non-profit? can you send me the links? thanks.
more...
gjoe
10-05 10:59 AM
This is what the law says:
INA Section 203(e) provides that family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition in behalf of each has been filed.
What is your argument to sue?
How can someone with EB3 with a later PD get GC before me? If he has been approved there should be valid reason why mine is not approved, the reason should be something other than USCIS ineffeciency.
INA Section 203(e) provides that family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition in behalf of each has been filed.
What is your argument to sue?
How can someone with EB3 with a later PD get GC before me? If he has been approved there should be valid reason why mine is not approved, the reason should be something other than USCIS ineffeciency.
hot Tim Cahill Australia. Thanks to everyone who has sent questions.
sree_99
02-01 07:11 PM
Sorry, if this is already discussed mutiple times. I was not able to find any Info.
My Wife needs to travel to India urgently. She is currently on F1 Visa and has EAD and Advance Parole.
While Coming back is it required to use AP or can she come back on F1. Please help me with some info or pointers to exisitng threads discussing this are greatly appreciated
Thanks,
-Sree
My Wife needs to travel to India urgently. She is currently on F1 Visa and has EAD and Advance Parole.
While Coming back is it required to use AP or can she come back on F1. Please help me with some info or pointers to exisitng threads discussing this are greatly appreciated
Thanks,
-Sree
more...
house Tim Cahill Tattoo Pics Images:
bhayzone
04-02 06:45 PM
Hi,
My wife is on an H4 and we're planning to change her status to F1.
Now my H1, thus her H4 is up for renewal soon (I have another 3 yrs on my H1).
I will very soon be transferring my H1 to a new company.
I am worried about the implications this might have on the H4 to F1 transfer.
1] When my new company transfers the H1, will they also file for renewal? Or will they only transfer and later renew seperately.
2] Assuming that we change the current H4 to F1, then will we have to renew the F1 too when my wife's H4 is transferred (due to my H1 transfer).
3] Is it better to transfer to F1 from the current H4 , or wait for the new H4 for the transfer.
All advice/suggestion would be really appreciated.
My wife is on an H4 and we're planning to change her status to F1.
Now my H1, thus her H4 is up for renewal soon (I have another 3 yrs on my H1).
I will very soon be transferring my H1 to a new company.
I am worried about the implications this might have on the H4 to F1 transfer.
1] When my new company transfers the H1, will they also file for renewal? Or will they only transfer and later renew seperately.
2] Assuming that we change the current H4 to F1, then will we have to renew the F1 too when my wife's H4 is transferred (due to my H1 transfer).
3] Is it better to transfer to F1 from the current H4 , or wait for the new H4 for the transfer.
All advice/suggestion would be really appreciated.
tattoo tim cahill tattoo. Sneijder, Tim Cahill,; Sneijder, Tim Cahill,. daneoni
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
pictures tim cahill tattoo. Tim+cahill+sleeve+tattoo
Alex
05-30 10:13 PM
i wish i would of noticed this battle earlyer, it would of been alot of fun.
Soul has my vote.
Good job everyone! :)
Soul has my vote.
Good job everyone! :)
dresses tim cahill tattoo. Tim Cahill
bigboy007
12-10 01:59 PM
In any fashion of THese threads everyones comment :
"which should match/similar to your GC labor"
WHich is a very generalized statement.
I am in this boat : Please advice me on the options:
1. Pd 2004 : GCLABOR 1.5 yrs exp : Its a pretty generic Labor which says "evaluating requests , planning , designing etc" with title of Programmer analyst.
2. I have my 140 approved , 485 pending will complete 180 day mark by dec 29. Now i am NOT on EAD neither want to be.
3. I have new opportunity where company is offering me a good pay range + they are ok with filing H1b . But job role is different like " Software Architect".
Now i am caught up in saying how i am using "AC21" when i transfer H1b what happens to my AOS? what should i do to keep it alive ? what are my options ?
Kindly help i am lost. Current GC labor etc is all for future employment how am i leveraging these two. Please help .... please help.
"which should match/similar to your GC labor"
WHich is a very generalized statement.
I am in this boat : Please advice me on the options:
1. Pd 2004 : GCLABOR 1.5 yrs exp : Its a pretty generic Labor which says "evaluating requests , planning , designing etc" with title of Programmer analyst.
2. I have my 140 approved , 485 pending will complete 180 day mark by dec 29. Now i am NOT on EAD neither want to be.
3. I have new opportunity where company is offering me a good pay range + they are ok with filing H1b . But job role is different like " Software Architect".
Now i am caught up in saying how i am using "AC21" when i transfer H1b what happens to my AOS? what should i do to keep it alive ? what are my options ?
Kindly help i am lost. Current GC labor etc is all for future employment how am i leveraging these two. Please help .... please help.
more...
makeup hot Tim Cahill Harry Kewell
tinamatthew
07-22 11:03 PM
A1: Receipt date is assigned by USCIS when they re-enter or mark your case as PP. This is different from when FedEx delivered the PP request. In my friend's case, the difference in these two dates was 10 business days. This was in early June and his I-140 was approved in 3 business days. He stated "Applied for i140 premium processing on June 22nd, 2007" From what I understand, this new i-140 application was PPS and not an upgrade. The receipt date is the date USCIS date stamps the application. I think he will get his money returned as they have passed the 14 day deadline.
A2: Most probably, that is what has happened.
A3: In Rajiv Khanna's conference call (you can download them from his Web site), he suggested the concurrent filing option when someone asked him a similar question.
Good luck!
Thanks,
Jayant
Thanks
A2: Most probably, that is what has happened.
A3: In Rajiv Khanna's conference call (you can download them from his Web site), he suggested the concurrent filing option when someone asked him a similar question.
Good luck!
Thanks,
Jayant
Thanks
girlfriend tim cahill tattoo. Tim Burton Tattoos
raghureddy
03-18 06:03 PM
The reason they said was they are doing the back ground check on the company. But i am on the payroll from the same company since last 4years...
hairstyles tim cahill tattoo. Tim Cahill Harry Kewell
rp0lol
11-09 12:48 PM
I completed the form, all others, please do so.
cagedcactus
04-06 11:05 AM
while it is good to hear from USCIS, who pretends to be running smooth in law makers' eyes, it is also disappointing that nothing is being done to resolve. Numerous amounts of attempts have been made by pro immigration parties, but nothing has passed that can help the cause immensely. They just continue to run as they feel necessary, and regardless of how many senetors I have met, the outcome has been same. Lots of promises and no action.
This is huge moneymaking machine for USA that will continue to be so. Why the heck would they jeopardise their income on EAD and AP renewals? :rolleyes:
we are in for long ride.... have been in for a long time, and it is just getting longer....
This is huge moneymaking machine for USA that will continue to be so. Why the heck would they jeopardise their income on EAD and AP renewals? :rolleyes:
we are in for long ride.... have been in for a long time, and it is just getting longer....
perm2gc
10-27 07:09 PM
I have applied for my H1B extension in july and got the approval in Aug...:D
No comments:
Post a Comment