pachinko
06-24 03:49 PM
Hi all, I have a question regarding my current situation. I'm currently working for this non-profit organization under my OPT that is good until the end of Oct of this year. My question is basically whether or not I can ask my employer (already agreed) to petition for me for an H1-b visa? Can I still apply right now before my OPT expires or would it be better to apply next year on the first day of April? If I can get an approval for my H1-b would it be good to get a TN in the meantime and later have my employer petition me for an h1-B then?
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated as I don't want to waste the opportunity to apply if I can get one at this time. I heard is better and easier to apply for one while under OPT than TN to H1-B but I'm not sure or rather confused about this!
Thanks in advance.
Pachinko Dude
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated as I don't want to waste the opportunity to apply if I can get one at this time. I heard is better and easier to apply for one while under OPT than TN to H1-B but I'm not sure or rather confused about this!
Thanks in advance.
Pachinko Dude
wallpaper Latest ob hairstyles 2009
RNGC
10-22 01:40 PM
Ok, Lots of people have been telling good ideas.....Here is one more.
As part of our campaign on these legislations (HR 5882, HR 5921 & HR 6039 ), I wrote to my congressman. Afte sometime I got a reply and I was suprised that he had personally signed it. I know many IV members have contacted their congressman/Senators and they might have got a reply back.
My idea is that we should all mail the responses we got from our law makers to IV core. They can collect these letters, highlight the positive responses the lawmakers have said and send them to the chairman of "Judiciary" committee. This way IV can raise its stature and be know as a organisation for Legal Immigrants who are doing the right thing by contacting the law makers.
Makes sense ?
As part of our campaign on these legislations (HR 5882, HR 5921 & HR 6039 ), I wrote to my congressman. Afte sometime I got a reply and I was suprised that he had personally signed it. I know many IV members have contacted their congressman/Senators and they might have got a reply back.
My idea is that we should all mail the responses we got from our law makers to IV core. They can collect these letters, highlight the positive responses the lawmakers have said and send them to the chairman of "Judiciary" committee. This way IV can raise its stature and be know as a organisation for Legal Immigrants who are doing the right thing by contacting the law makers.
Makes sense ?
paragpujara
10-18 09:35 AM
It could be for photographs / copies of personal pages of the passport / missing signature / Photo Id.
2011 Trendy Bob Haircut
gauravsh
03-31 07:35 PM
Your wait really starts when you gets your I140 approved. After that you can do all is to wait for 8/9/10/11 dates every month to watch the visa bulletins [:(]
more...
pod1
10-21 12:38 AM
I am in 6th year of my H1B. It is expiring in Aug 2011.
Here are some details:
- My I-140 is approved with a priority date of Aug 2006 under EB2-India.
- I did not apply for I-485 so I do not have a EAD.
- My wife is also on H1B which expires in Aug 2012.
Here are my questions:
1) If I apply for H1B extension in July 2011 under regular processing and assuming it takes 4-5 months for USCIS to process the application, can I still continue to work? For how many days can I work if visa renewal is still in processing after the visa has expired.
2) If I get a denial of H1B extension do I become out of status from the date of denial or from the day H1B got expired?
3) If I get a denial of H1B extension can I immediately apply for H4 as a dependent to my wife's visa without any issues?
4) If I get a denial of H1B extension, what happens to my I-140? Is it automatically invalid?
5) If I do convert to H4 status and my priority date becomes current can I apply for I-485?
Here are some details:
- My I-140 is approved with a priority date of Aug 2006 under EB2-India.
- I did not apply for I-485 so I do not have a EAD.
- My wife is also on H1B which expires in Aug 2012.
Here are my questions:
1) If I apply for H1B extension in July 2011 under regular processing and assuming it takes 4-5 months for USCIS to process the application, can I still continue to work? For how many days can I work if visa renewal is still in processing after the visa has expired.
2) If I get a denial of H1B extension do I become out of status from the date of denial or from the day H1B got expired?
3) If I get a denial of H1B extension can I immediately apply for H4 as a dependent to my wife's visa without any issues?
4) If I get a denial of H1B extension, what happens to my I-140? Is it automatically invalid?
5) If I do convert to H4 status and my priority date becomes current can I apply for I-485?
GCBy3000
07-27 09:33 PM
Good if this works out.
more...
India_USA
12-17 12:15 PM
We need to have prominent members of the society to take up our cause
2010 In 2009, the hair trends are
wandmaker
01-02 07:28 PM
Dependent spouse using EAD does not invalidate your H1 status - If you use EAD then your H1 becomes invalid and your status will be "Pending AOS"
more...
desiap
04-18 01:34 AM
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1791
H.R. 1791:
111th Congress
This is a bill in the U.S. Congress originating in the House of Representatives ("H.R."). A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate and then be signed by the President before it becomes law.
STAPLE Act
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize certain aliens who have earned a Ph.D. degree from a United States institution of higher education in a field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics to be admitted for permanent residence and to be exempted from the numerical limitations on H-1B nonimmigrants.
H.R. 1791:
111th Congress
This is a bill in the U.S. Congress originating in the House of Representatives ("H.R."). A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate and then be signed by the President before it becomes law.
STAPLE Act
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize certain aliens who have earned a Ph.D. degree from a United States institution of higher education in a field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics to be admitted for permanent residence and to be exempted from the numerical limitations on H-1B nonimmigrants.
hair Another Nice Bob Haircut
yogesh
11-12 09:44 AM
hi guys,
during stage 3, they require a birth certificate. what if I dont have a birth certificate? do they accept an affidavit from my parents with a domicile cerrtificate or not? i dont even have a school leaving certificate. please give me advices.
Thank You
Yogesh
during stage 3, they require a birth certificate. what if I dont have a birth certificate? do they accept an affidavit from my parents with a domicile cerrtificate or not? i dont even have a school leaving certificate. please give me advices.
Thank You
Yogesh
more...
IN2US
07-10 06:25 PM
We are posting media coverage on this thread. Just posted an article from Reuters there!
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6305
-- I got that, I'm talking about TV Broadcast since this morning???
lets hope we get some PrimeTime in major channels.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6305
-- I got that, I'm talking about TV Broadcast since this morning???
lets hope we get some PrimeTime in major channels.
hot Short Angled Bob Hair Styles
viahalmottarlk2
02-04 11:52 AM
Hi people I'm new here, though I hope you will try to help me nontheless. I write a project that does some complex querying over the Data Base through LINQ to Entities. A thing that could greatly help me is if I knew how to use Regex in my queries. A little more info about my project: SQL 2005 .NET 4.0 Entity Framework to connect to Data Base. thanks!
more...
house 2009 blonde ob hairstyle
raysaikat
11-29 08:59 PM
Online EAD status says Card production ordered. Not received card yet. Is there any memo/ lawyer opinion that says it is OK to work that as a basis for employment eligibility?
You need to have the card in hand to fill in I-9.
You need to have the card in hand to fill in I-9.
tattoo 2009 brunette ob hairstyle
saibaba
12-10 10:30 PM
oops....messed it up....can some one move this thread to Non Immigrant - H1 visa section?
I have few more issues that I want to discuss related to PIMS ...
I have few more issues that I want to discuss related to PIMS ...
more...
pictures 2009-ob-hair-styles-
MatsP
March 23rd, 2010, 03:22 PM
I'd suggest contacting Adobe. Surely if you have a product that supports the file-format, and an upgrade of the firmware changes that, it's part of Adobe's support package to allow an upgrade of the Raw File support.
--
Mats
--
Mats
dresses Mad Rad Emo Hairstyles 2009
ssksubash
03-13 11:04 AM
HI,
My 6 yr H1B is expiring within 4 months, my company will be filing for the 7th yr extension. Will there be any problem if I send my inlaws for visitor visa now.
Can any one please advice.
Thank you for your time
My 6 yr H1B is expiring within 4 months, my company will be filing for the 7th yr extension. Will there be any problem if I send my inlaws for visitor visa now.
Can any one please advice.
Thank you for your time
more...
makeup ob hairstyles for 2009. cute
Freind47
08-14 04:54 PM
On I140 form, notice type has information about INS section.
The INS section explain that your GC is under EB2 category or EB3 category.
INS section details
INA Section 203(b) (2) is EB-2
INA Section 203(b) (3) is EB-3
Hope this will help some of us.:D
The INS section explain that your GC is under EB2 category or EB3 category.
INS section details
INA Section 203(b) (2) is EB-2
INA Section 203(b) (3) is EB-3
Hope this will help some of us.:D
girlfriend sleek ob hairstyle 2010
sareesh
07-27 03:30 PM
open a service request.
thanks,
SG.
thanks,
SG.
hairstyles angle ob hairstyles. 2009 ob
Macaca
05-19 07:30 AM
A New Reality in Washington, but Can It Last? (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/washington/19assess.html) By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) May 19, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Six months after Republicans lost control of Congress, President Bush is learning the rules of a game that, for six years, he seemed to have forgotten: the Capitol Hill edition of �Let�s Make a Deal.�
In the last eight days alone, talks involving cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking White House officials have produced two surprises: a major compromise with Democrats on trade and Thursday�s fragile bipartisan accord on immigration. The question now is whether the sudden burst of deal-making will extend from these easier targets to the most intractable issue in Washington: the war in Iraq.
It is still far from clear whether the Bush administration and Congressional Democrats can be flexible enough to reach an accommodation on war spending � and indeed, the Iraq talks stumbled on Friday. What is clear is that both Mr. Bush and his rivals are shying from the path of confrontation. Democrats, for the most part, are refraining from muscle-flexing, showers of subpoenas and other displays of new clout. And a White House hungry for legislative victories is working hard to negotiate a vastly changed political landscape.
�The president has become belatedly pragmatic,� said Ross Baker, an expert in presidential-Congressional relations at Rutgers University. �I think it took a while for him to recognize that the ground rules have changed, but he seems finally to have come around to the realization that he�s not working with a docile Congress of his own party, but with people who really have decided that they are going to challenge him.�
The White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, who is the president�s lead negotiator on the Iraq bill, conceded in an interview earlier this week that it had been difficult for the administration to get accustomed to not controlling the legislative agenda.
Yet despite �a fair amount of substantive tension� in the relationship with Democrats, Mr. Bolten said, the immigration and trade deals have left him feeling encouraged.
�We have some ways to go,� he said, �but there is a process of confidence building that accumulates over time.�
Maybe so, but after six years of being virtually ignored by the administration, many Democrats remain wary. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, complained on Friday that the Bush White House had �never been very interested in anything except the way they wanted to do business.� Mr. Dorgan said he was not impressed with the fact, given the change of party power, that they are talking.
�That gives credit for low expectations,� he said.
Others, less in the thick of things, sounded more upbeat. Leon E. Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said he had been concerned, once the Democrats took control of Congress, that �an awful lot of blood in the water� would prevent the parties from coming to terms on �low-hanging fruit� like immigration and trade.
In Mr. Panetta�s view, the talks are a good sign. �Whether it can go into bigger areas like the war remains to be seen,� he said. �But it clearly helps build at least a rapport that you absolutely need if you�re going to try to come to a deal.�
Mr. Bush, of course, is not the first president who was forced to come to grips with a new political reality after losing control of Congress. Mr. Clinton did just that after Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 1994. That loss created the political climate that enabled Mr. Clinton to make good on his promise to revamp the nation�s welfare system.
Likewise, the change in November has made it easier for Mr. Bush to pursue his trade agenda and his long-cherished goal of immigration overhaul.
In the trade deal, the administration�s unlikely partner was Representative Charles B. Rangel, the tough-talking Democrat from Harlem. The White House acceded to his demands for child labor and environmental protections in several pending trade pacts, a move that would have been unthinkable when Republicans controlled the House, because Mr. Rangel�s Republican predecessor as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill Thomas of California, would have blocked it.
On immigration, Mr. Bush�s position already seemed nearer that of Democrats than Republicans, and some in his own party are highly nervous about the deal. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, who was majority leader when Mr. Clinton was president, said Republicans would criticize the administration as giving away too much on immigration, just as Democrats criticized Mr. Clinton as giving away too much on welfare overhaul.
�But,� Mr. Lott said, �I would argue that the White House is coming to terms with the reality of the situation in Washington, and they don�t have any choice. We can all get into our partisan crouches and get nothing, or we can go through a process of responsible negotiations.�
Administration officials say both sides seem to be learning as they go. But Iraq is an area where Mr. Bush has been especially unwilling to yield. He has made clear he has little interest in sharing his power as commander in chief.
While Mr. Bush has been trying to strike a conciliatory tone � he said Thursday that he would accept benchmarks for the Iraqi government � the breakdown in talks on Friday was a reminder that Iraq is not immigration or trade, and the president will only go so far.
Some say the trade and immigration deals could actually work against compromise on Iraq. After cutting two big deals, Democrats and Republicans might not be inclined toward another one, for fear that they will look wishy-washy with their respective political bases.
On the other hand, one force pushing toward compromise is that neither side can afford to get blamed for holding back money from the troops. Even so, Mr. Panetta says it is too early to be optimistic.
�There�s some light at the end of the tunnel,� he said, ��but it could get dark real fast.�
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Six months after Republicans lost control of Congress, President Bush is learning the rules of a game that, for six years, he seemed to have forgotten: the Capitol Hill edition of �Let�s Make a Deal.�
In the last eight days alone, talks involving cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking White House officials have produced two surprises: a major compromise with Democrats on trade and Thursday�s fragile bipartisan accord on immigration. The question now is whether the sudden burst of deal-making will extend from these easier targets to the most intractable issue in Washington: the war in Iraq.
It is still far from clear whether the Bush administration and Congressional Democrats can be flexible enough to reach an accommodation on war spending � and indeed, the Iraq talks stumbled on Friday. What is clear is that both Mr. Bush and his rivals are shying from the path of confrontation. Democrats, for the most part, are refraining from muscle-flexing, showers of subpoenas and other displays of new clout. And a White House hungry for legislative victories is working hard to negotiate a vastly changed political landscape.
�The president has become belatedly pragmatic,� said Ross Baker, an expert in presidential-Congressional relations at Rutgers University. �I think it took a while for him to recognize that the ground rules have changed, but he seems finally to have come around to the realization that he�s not working with a docile Congress of his own party, but with people who really have decided that they are going to challenge him.�
The White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, who is the president�s lead negotiator on the Iraq bill, conceded in an interview earlier this week that it had been difficult for the administration to get accustomed to not controlling the legislative agenda.
Yet despite �a fair amount of substantive tension� in the relationship with Democrats, Mr. Bolten said, the immigration and trade deals have left him feeling encouraged.
�We have some ways to go,� he said, �but there is a process of confidence building that accumulates over time.�
Maybe so, but after six years of being virtually ignored by the administration, many Democrats remain wary. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, complained on Friday that the Bush White House had �never been very interested in anything except the way they wanted to do business.� Mr. Dorgan said he was not impressed with the fact, given the change of party power, that they are talking.
�That gives credit for low expectations,� he said.
Others, less in the thick of things, sounded more upbeat. Leon E. Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said he had been concerned, once the Democrats took control of Congress, that �an awful lot of blood in the water� would prevent the parties from coming to terms on �low-hanging fruit� like immigration and trade.
In Mr. Panetta�s view, the talks are a good sign. �Whether it can go into bigger areas like the war remains to be seen,� he said. �But it clearly helps build at least a rapport that you absolutely need if you�re going to try to come to a deal.�
Mr. Bush, of course, is not the first president who was forced to come to grips with a new political reality after losing control of Congress. Mr. Clinton did just that after Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 1994. That loss created the political climate that enabled Mr. Clinton to make good on his promise to revamp the nation�s welfare system.
Likewise, the change in November has made it easier for Mr. Bush to pursue his trade agenda and his long-cherished goal of immigration overhaul.
In the trade deal, the administration�s unlikely partner was Representative Charles B. Rangel, the tough-talking Democrat from Harlem. The White House acceded to his demands for child labor and environmental protections in several pending trade pacts, a move that would have been unthinkable when Republicans controlled the House, because Mr. Rangel�s Republican predecessor as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill Thomas of California, would have blocked it.
On immigration, Mr. Bush�s position already seemed nearer that of Democrats than Republicans, and some in his own party are highly nervous about the deal. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, who was majority leader when Mr. Clinton was president, said Republicans would criticize the administration as giving away too much on immigration, just as Democrats criticized Mr. Clinton as giving away too much on welfare overhaul.
�But,� Mr. Lott said, �I would argue that the White House is coming to terms with the reality of the situation in Washington, and they don�t have any choice. We can all get into our partisan crouches and get nothing, or we can go through a process of responsible negotiations.�
Administration officials say both sides seem to be learning as they go. But Iraq is an area where Mr. Bush has been especially unwilling to yield. He has made clear he has little interest in sharing his power as commander in chief.
While Mr. Bush has been trying to strike a conciliatory tone � he said Thursday that he would accept benchmarks for the Iraqi government � the breakdown in talks on Friday was a reminder that Iraq is not immigration or trade, and the president will only go so far.
Some say the trade and immigration deals could actually work against compromise on Iraq. After cutting two big deals, Democrats and Republicans might not be inclined toward another one, for fear that they will look wishy-washy with their respective political bases.
On the other hand, one force pushing toward compromise is that neither side can afford to get blamed for holding back money from the troops. Even so, Mr. Panetta says it is too early to be optimistic.
�There�s some light at the end of the tunnel,� he said, ��but it could get dark real fast.�
bulgarian
07-29 02:11 AM
If I can make it more clear, I ment J1 to F1 status...?
neeidd
10-14 11:46 AM
Hi All,
I am purchasing tickets to INDIA in an hour. Haven't thought about this much until one of my friends asked me this. My priority date is March 2005. I am planning to travel to INDIA using AP in December last week and come back in first week of Feb 2010. IF my GC gets approved during my stay in INDIA, would it a problem while coming back or if an RFE is issued, would it be a problem.
Please advice
Thanks
I am purchasing tickets to INDIA in an hour. Haven't thought about this much until one of my friends asked me this. My priority date is March 2005. I am planning to travel to INDIA using AP in December last week and come back in first week of Feb 2010. IF my GC gets approved during my stay in INDIA, would it a problem while coming back or if an RFE is issued, would it be a problem.
Please advice
Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment