EB3_SEP04
09-05 08:13 PM
Congratulation to all EB2 who are getting their approvals. Have a wonderful post-GC life :)
When will, we EB3s (India), see some light at the end of the tunnel.
Looks like (in my case) after waiting for more than 5 years it will still take 3-4 years. I am mad :mad:
I personally love and am proficient in Hindi but I don't think we should make this site look like a Desi forum. Even if your post about India, a lot south/east indian people don't speak/understand hindi.
When will, we EB3s (India), see some light at the end of the tunnel.
Looks like (in my case) after waiting for more than 5 years it will still take 3-4 years. I am mad :mad:
I personally love and am proficient in Hindi but I don't think we should make this site look like a Desi forum. Even if your post about India, a lot south/east indian people don't speak/understand hindi.
wallpaper Cute Life Quotes for Facebook
OLDMONK
07-27 05:12 PM
If I-485 is rejected, can you switch back to H4 from EAD without going out of USA?
As per my knowledge you may be able to change status while remaining in US.. you may do that with Form I539. Check out this form and read through all categories. To make sure consult an attorney.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-539.pdf
As per my knowledge you may be able to change status while remaining in US.. you may do that with Form I539. Check out this form and read through all categories. To make sure consult an attorney.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-539.pdf
JunRN
08-11 06:00 PM
True. But USCIS doesn't care anymore because I-140 is already approved. The ability to pay is for I-140, not for AOS. There is no point for USCIS to get the ability to pay for AC21 cases because the adjudication is based on the approved I-140. If you will read the USCIS guidelines on this, it explains the reasons why.
2011 cute quotes on life and love.
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
jai_immigration
12-21 08:41 PM
NRI Investing in Stocks India:
Wanted to know if any of you have been able to successfully Invest in Stocks/Mutual funds in Indian Market on a Repatriable basis. If so please share your experience and which brokerage you have used.
I have tried to contact various Indian brokerages like ICICIDirect, HDFC, Kotak...All say that they do not take NRI's from USA for a Brokerage account. No idea what the reason is. Please share your experience.
Wanted to know if any of you have been able to successfully Invest in Stocks/Mutual funds in Indian Market on a Repatriable basis. If so please share your experience and which brokerage you have used.
I have tried to contact various Indian brokerages like ICICIDirect, HDFC, Kotak...All say that they do not take NRI's from USA for a Brokerage account. No idea what the reason is. Please share your experience.
crystal
10-18 10:56 AM
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=44
C. Personal Check in Mail:
You can send us a physical check. Most banks now provide a feature called BillPay by which you can send a check to anyone directly from your Bank's website free of cost. If you would like confirmation that your check has been received, please write your email id in the memo section of the check. Make the checks payable to Immigration Voice and send it to the following address.
Immigration Voice
PO Box 114
Dayton, NJ - 08810
C. Personal Check in Mail:
You can send us a physical check. Most banks now provide a feature called BillPay by which you can send a check to anyone directly from your Bank's website free of cost. If you would like confirmation that your check has been received, please write your email id in the memo section of the check. Make the checks payable to Immigration Voice and send it to the following address.
Immigration Voice
PO Box 114
Dayton, NJ - 08810
more...
drak70
03-08 10:42 AM
Here is my experience
My 140 got denied. 485 showed was pending online. I maintained my visa status separately at all times and I filed and MTR within 30 days .t never got denied online at least
As per my discussion with 2 big shot lawyers office. While I-485 denial usually follows I-140 denial, they are NOT automatically done by the computer. ie someone opens your 485 file and signs off on the denial, based on 140 denial
In the MTR filing the lawyers specially requested that the 485 filed concurrently be also reopened consistent with the decision of the MTR.in my case MTR was successfull 140 got approved and 485 also got approved after 6 months
In your case keeping working on EAD is dangerous because 485 denial will and can occur anytime and it will leave you scrambling for status cover.Dont depend on online status check. My temp GC was stamped by USCIS even though it shows pending online
My 140 got denied. 485 showed was pending online. I maintained my visa status separately at all times and I filed and MTR within 30 days .t never got denied online at least
As per my discussion with 2 big shot lawyers office. While I-485 denial usually follows I-140 denial, they are NOT automatically done by the computer. ie someone opens your 485 file and signs off on the denial, based on 140 denial
In the MTR filing the lawyers specially requested that the 485 filed concurrently be also reopened consistent with the decision of the MTR.in my case MTR was successfull 140 got approved and 485 also got approved after 6 months
In your case keeping working on EAD is dangerous because 485 denial will and can occur anytime and it will leave you scrambling for status cover.Dont depend on online status check. My temp GC was stamped by USCIS even though it shows pending online
2010 Never Give Up - Love Quotes
shirish
10-15 03:49 PM
Thankx for the info.
Once she goes from H4 to AOS(using EAD), it doesnt matter .she can work partime, FT or not work at all.
Once she goes from H4 to AOS(using EAD), it doesnt matter .she can work partime, FT or not work at all.
more...
mysticblue
08-17 11:33 PM
just remember to carefully preserve all payslips, email communications, and all other docs from this period. If and when you file for GC, you MAY need these docs.
But, otherwise, your case is straightforward. As long as you send the H1 transfer to CIS before you are terminated/resign from B, you status will continue uninterrupted... So you are ok.
Thanks. That helped a lot !
But, otherwise, your case is straightforward. As long as you send the H1 transfer to CIS before you are terminated/resign from B, you status will continue uninterrupted... So you are ok.
Thanks. That helped a lot !
hair cute love quotes and sayings
dionysus
01-29 06:19 PM
True. We are all turning amateur lawyers by now. Our resumes should have a line saying experience includes, but not limited to, decoding complex USCIS regulations, preparing legal communications etc.
Able/willing!!
Look how EB process affected our life.. Labor certification terminology now feels so natural to us
Able/willing!!
Look how EB process affected our life.. Labor certification terminology now feels so natural to us
more...
gugan
12-13 09:39 AM
Hi, I am planning to apply for PIO card for my daughter , can you please tell me what are all the documents I need to get notarized ?
Thanks
Thanks
hot cute quotes on life and love.
laksmi
01-07 04:02 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14154
more...
house cute quotes on life and love.
amoljak
10-16 01:51 PM
Which country are you from ?
tattoo tattoo cute quotes on life and
Edison99
09-30 12:15 PM
Thanks for the link!
Central Board of Excise and Customs (http://www.cbec.gov.in/)
Personally we never had problem carrying personal Jewelery.
Central Board of Excise and Customs (http://www.cbec.gov.in/)
Personally we never had problem carrying personal Jewelery.
more...
pictures cute quotes on life and love.
go_guy123
02-28 03:16 PM
Nothing to worry if you are a genuine employee of a genuine company, as most of us are! People who don't cheat need not be afraid of USCIS or IRS inquisition.
A lot of it is about harassing small businesses for documentation mistakes and levying fine.
I-9 Crackdown to Intensify with New ICE Audit Office � Talk Immigration (http://www.talkimmigration.com/non-immigrant-visas/i-9-crackdown-to-intensify-with-new-ice-audit-office)
A lot of it is about harassing small businesses for documentation mistakes and levying fine.
I-9 Crackdown to Intensify with New ICE Audit Office � Talk Immigration (http://www.talkimmigration.com/non-immigrant-visas/i-9-crackdown-to-intensify-with-new-ice-audit-office)
dresses Cute Quotes About Life And
terpcurt
January 6th, 2005, 07:08 PM
Now I am Jealous......... you guys make it look easy, and I have no clue on how you get the color into the B&W like you do..........................
more...
makeup cute quotes on life and love.
gparr
April 16th, 2004, 03:01 PM
I like the first one best.
Gary
Gary
girlfriend cute quotes on life and love.
Texascitypaul
02-23 06:15 PM
No necessarily protected. Anyone who overstays their I-94 is removable (deportable). However, some people can contest that in removal proceedings. One basis to contest a removal order is because the foreign national is married to a US citizen and/or has an Adjustment of Status pending.
The problem with VWP entrants is that they sign away their rights to contest a removal order, even if married to a US citizen (unless they claim asylum). Worse - they can be removed without a hearing in immigration court, simply by an order of the local District Director. In theory, a VWP entrant who overstayed could file for permanent residence and be issued a removal order and put in detention when s/he turned up for the marriage interview at the District Office.
I don't mean to terrify you, and most district offices do approve cases filed by VWP entrants, but please check with a local attorney before filing anything.
__________________
Thank you very much for clarifying that for me,ok so first thing is to find a reputable immigration attorney close to me in Texas City.
Thank you for your time it is very much appreciated,
Paul
The problem with VWP entrants is that they sign away their rights to contest a removal order, even if married to a US citizen (unless they claim asylum). Worse - they can be removed without a hearing in immigration court, simply by an order of the local District Director. In theory, a VWP entrant who overstayed could file for permanent residence and be issued a removal order and put in detention when s/he turned up for the marriage interview at the District Office.
I don't mean to terrify you, and most district offices do approve cases filed by VWP entrants, but please check with a local attorney before filing anything.
__________________
Thank you very much for clarifying that for me,ok so first thing is to find a reputable immigration attorney close to me in Texas City.
Thank you for your time it is very much appreciated,
Paul
hairstyles cute quotes on life and love.
a_yaja
03-15 12:07 PM
This topic seems to be gray for H1B holders. What is allowed and what is not.
* What about cases where people submit content to magazines and are paid a small amount (if published)? It is kind of funny to tell them - "you know I won't accept your $200 bucks because I am on H1B and cannot accept anything else".
Accepting $200 for an article in the above scenario should be OK. However, if you are going to make a career out of it (writting articles for the sole purpose of generating income) - they you have crossed the line for "passive income" definition. Similarly, selling stuff on auction sites is OK as long as you are diposing off your stuff. But if you are going to go around your neighbourhood looking for stuff that you can sell on auction sites, then again you have crossed the line.
All said and done, this is definitely a grey area for people who do this often - for example, who decides the number of aricles that you can write before the hobby turns into profession:D ?
* What about cases where people submit content to magazines and are paid a small amount (if published)? It is kind of funny to tell them - "you know I won't accept your $200 bucks because I am on H1B and cannot accept anything else".
Accepting $200 for an article in the above scenario should be OK. However, if you are going to make a career out of it (writting articles for the sole purpose of generating income) - they you have crossed the line for "passive income" definition. Similarly, selling stuff on auction sites is OK as long as you are diposing off your stuff. But if you are going to go around your neighbourhood looking for stuff that you can sell on auction sites, then again you have crossed the line.
All said and done, this is definitely a grey area for people who do this often - for example, who decides the number of aricles that you can write before the hobby turns into profession:D ?
wandmaker
08-17 02:14 AM
Thanks for the valuable inputs.
Applying for premium processing with Company C seems to be best option. However sometimes premium processing takes more than 15 days to get a result. Since Company B has indicated that they will terminate my employment by the end of this month (less than 15 days from now), I may not have the option of resigning from Company B, before getting Company C's approval.
If B terminates my employment, and my transfer to C is still Pending, what will happen in such a case ?
You can start working for Employer C as and when you have the receipt notice for C's transfer. Just make sure, you file for transfer before termination. You have all the documents that is required for H1 transfer, dont worry about it.
Applying for premium processing with Company C seems to be best option. However sometimes premium processing takes more than 15 days to get a result. Since Company B has indicated that they will terminate my employment by the end of this month (less than 15 days from now), I may not have the option of resigning from Company B, before getting Company C's approval.
If B terminates my employment, and my transfer to C is still Pending, what will happen in such a case ?
You can start working for Employer C as and when you have the receipt notice for C's transfer. Just make sure, you file for transfer before termination. You have all the documents that is required for H1 transfer, dont worry about it.
rockstart
08-27 09:32 AM
With so many auidts being done on companies with high numbers of H1B employees. It kind of helps the employer if the employees move to EAD status that will reduce the percentage of people on H1 drastically and put then under the radar.
No comments:
Post a Comment