hopefulgc
09-15 09:22 AM
last link won't work
and it seems like an old article
and it seems like an old article
wallpaper World Cup Soccer Gallery Photo
enigma006
11-17 10:45 PM
Hai..
My OPT ends dec 08 and my H1 got selected in lottery but received RFE in Oct and case is still pending. Can I go for OPT extension right now as there is just 1 month time to file it?? Or should I go for premium processing of H1 and then go for OPT extension filing depending on H1 case result??
If I go for OPT extension right now even when H1 case is pending,
1)What happens to that OPT extension case if H1 gets approved?
2)What happens to that OPT extension case if H1 gets rejected?
Help me..
thanks...
My OPT ends dec 08 and my H1 got selected in lottery but received RFE in Oct and case is still pending. Can I go for OPT extension right now as there is just 1 month time to file it?? Or should I go for premium processing of H1 and then go for OPT extension filing depending on H1 case result??
If I go for OPT extension right now even when H1 case is pending,
1)What happens to that OPT extension case if H1 gets approved?
2)What happens to that OPT extension case if H1 gets rejected?
Help me..
thanks...
geevikram
11-22 12:02 PM
I work for company A which is pretty stable,on a H1b visa. I've no problems except that you will not find another horrible boss anywhere. Trust me, I've worked in quite some places and I've seen pretty bad bosses, but with this guy, you have someone who will always make you look bad and will literally shout at you. I've had enough and I want to switch.
I've around 3 yrs left on h1. The new company will sponsor my H1b and they will start my GC on the first week of my starting. (the person hiring me is a good friend)
The question I have is, what happens to the h1 that company A is holding when I transfer to Company B . There might be a reason company A's CTO might not want me to leave. He also cannot do anything about my boss at this point. It gets little complex at this point, but I want to know if i can work part time on h1b for company A while I work as full time for company B.
Sorry for the big post and thanks for your help.
I've around 3 yrs left on h1. The new company will sponsor my H1b and they will start my GC on the first week of my starting. (the person hiring me is a good friend)
The question I have is, what happens to the h1 that company A is holding when I transfer to Company B . There might be a reason company A's CTO might not want me to leave. He also cannot do anything about my boss at this point. It gets little complex at this point, but I want to know if i can work part time on h1b for company A while I work as full time for company B.
Sorry for the big post and thanks for your help.
2011 during their World Cup
Blog Feeds
08-18 02:10 AM
Immigration Lawyers Blog Has Just Posted the Following:
The new visa bulletin is out at this link: http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5113.html. Employment-based categories are as follows: EB-1 remains current for all countries; EB-2 remains current, except for India and China which are at May 2006; EB-3 is at Dec. 2004 for all countries, except for India (Jan. 2002), China (Oct. 2003), and Mexico (currently unavailable); EB-3 other workers is at March 2003 for all countries, except India (Jan. 2002)and Mexico (currently unavailable); EB-4, religious workers, EB-5, and targeted employment areas and regional centers are all current. Family based petitions are backlogged, with the most recent date at Jan. 2010.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~4/hHcICkxAgKc
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~3/hHcICkxAgKc/september_2010_department_of_s.html)
The new visa bulletin is out at this link: http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5113.html. Employment-based categories are as follows: EB-1 remains current for all countries; EB-2 remains current, except for India and China which are at May 2006; EB-3 is at Dec. 2004 for all countries, except for India (Jan. 2002), China (Oct. 2003), and Mexico (currently unavailable); EB-3 other workers is at March 2003 for all countries, except India (Jan. 2002)and Mexico (currently unavailable); EB-4, religious workers, EB-5, and targeted employment areas and regional centers are all current. Family based petitions are backlogged, with the most recent date at Jan. 2010.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~4/hHcICkxAgKc
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~3/hHcICkxAgKc/september_2010_department_of_s.html)
more...
z!Bmk~%24(KGrHqQOKi!E)%2BV3cib0BMgkWCmBu!~~_3.JPG "VERY RARE Waterman Ball Point World Cup 1998 France | eBay")
NANO3
11-10 09:55 PM
nice pixel drawings, its still a little cut and the tree isn't 3D
nice job otherwise
nice job otherwise
santa123
09-11 10:38 PM
Looks like everyone is trying various tricks:mad:
more...
good idea
10-11 08:54 AM
I got really good news... EB3 moved for 1 week...... its 22nd Jan 2002 now...:rolleyes:
2010 Football, World Cup,
waitin_toolong
11-13 01:43 PM
not a problem
more...
willy007
10-11 10:22 AM
I was trying to know what are the possibility of those people who have ported successfully and still got their GC approved.
I realized that people who already got their GC won't be visiting this site. But, if you have known somebody who did, vote on the poll please.
1. Changed jobs --> interview --> got GC (no RFE)
2. Changed jobs --> RFE --> invoke AC21 --> interview --> got GC (invoke AC21 only when requested)
3. Changed jobs --> invoke AC21 --> interview --> got GC (invoke AC21 voluntarily, but no more RFE)
4. Changed jobs --> invoke AC21 --> RFE --> interview --> got GC (invoke AC21 voluntarily, but still get a RFE later)
I realized that people who already got their GC won't be visiting this site. But, if you have known somebody who did, vote on the poll please.
1. Changed jobs --> interview --> got GC (no RFE)
2. Changed jobs --> RFE --> invoke AC21 --> interview --> got GC (invoke AC21 only when requested)
3. Changed jobs --> invoke AC21 --> interview --> got GC (invoke AC21 voluntarily, but no more RFE)
4. Changed jobs --> invoke AC21 --> RFE --> interview --> got GC (invoke AC21 voluntarily, but still get a RFE later)
hair won the 1998 World Cup and
tnite
12-05 03:32 PM
I am July 2nd filer and got EAD approved.
My 485 notice has Received Date as July 19th 2007 and Notice Date as October 17th 2007.
Do i need to calculate 180 days from July 19th 2007 OR Oct 17th 2007 if i want to change the jobs?
July 19th..It's always the Receipt date
My 485 notice has Received Date as July 19th 2007 and Notice Date as October 17th 2007.
Do i need to calculate 180 days from July 19th 2007 OR Oct 17th 2007 if i want to change the jobs?
July 19th..It's always the Receipt date
more...
thesparky007
04-01 12:49 AM
*reported posts* - 5 million
hot VERY RARE Waterman Ball Point World Cup 1998 France | eBay
ciber.couger
07-15 11:54 AM
I sign it twise one for me and one for my wife, but signature numbers didn't change :confused:
more...
house the soccer World Cup 2006
Macaca
08-16 05:40 PM
Is the Senate Germane? Majority Leader Reid's Lament (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_19/procedural_politics/19719-1.html) By Don Wolfensberger | Roll Call, August 13, 2007
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
tattoo country to two World Cup
immi2006
05-25 12:49 AM
Bill Clinton was in Cisco Campus last week in connection with some strategic meeting for Cisco, which they have it yearly at Monterey, CA. Clinton has made it clear to its employees, they come first in line in respect to immigration/Green Cards. Rest follow. So it may be a good idea if followed up with Bill. He supports Tech Industry. Apparently, employees have access to this info via Video On Demand internally.
Bill Clinton was a special invitee at Cisco. Would it be a good idea to connect with Clinton to seek support ? Perhaps too late ? Vinod Khosla and Bill are extremely close.
Bill Clinton was a special invitee at Cisco. Would it be a good idea to connect with Clinton to seek support ? Perhaps too late ? Vinod Khosla and Bill are extremely close.
more...
pictures France, the 1998 champions
kirupa
05-27 03:29 PM
Post a direct link to the file or e-mail it to kirupa_at_kirupa.com ;)
dresses The World Cup Korea-Japan 2002
logiclife
03-07 11:35 AM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3396
more...
makeup 1998 World Cup Squad,
sugaur
09-27 01:04 PM
Stewart and Colbert and Hippy Liberals, but I love their show.
girlfriend of the FIFA World Cup ball
canada_com
04-08 01:23 PM
Now hiring of foreign workers won�t be an easy job for the employers. The government is on its way to make foreign worker rules tougher from this very week.
canada immigration (http://www.canadaupdates.com), canada immigration news (http://www.canadaupdates.com)
canada immigration (http://www.canadaupdates.com), canada immigration news (http://www.canadaupdates.com)
hairstyles of the soccer World Cup 98
agc2005
12-13 08:35 AM
sinv:
There should be a option to modify the the Application. I guess you can't modify PassportNo, Name etc.. But you can modify education details.
There should be a option to modify the the Application. I guess you can't modify PassportNo, Name etc.. But you can modify education details.
pd_recapturing
07-09 09:24 PM
it might be a little bit tricky to find this out. Talk to IO about your 485 and ask her about 140 during the conversation. She might tell you the PD on that. Once, I successfully reconformed my PD by trying this way ( I have approval notice with me though).
ItIsNotFunny
03-22 09:36 AM
Got an offer this year from a New Jersey based company called PR Consultants. Does anyone has any information about this company? Any help can be really useful ..
Are you looking for job?
Are you looking for job?
No comments:
Post a Comment