axl271
06-23 11:50 AM
I was laid off in early April, and the employer told me that they would revoke my H1B 30 days later (early May).
Now finally I get a job offer. The new employer can start to work on my h1b now, but the starting date will be late July.
I have an EAD right now based on my approved 140 and pending 485 (>=180days)
I talked with my attorney, and he said I would definitely have to go back to re-activate my H1B abroad, so I should use EAD instead of doing H1B.
Is it true that I have to go abroad to re-activate my h1B? I saw some people transferred sucessfully
Any thoughts? Thank you very much.
Now finally I get a job offer. The new employer can start to work on my h1b now, but the starting date will be late July.
I have an EAD right now based on my approved 140 and pending 485 (>=180days)
I talked with my attorney, and he said I would definitely have to go back to re-activate my H1B abroad, so I should use EAD instead of doing H1B.
Is it true that I have to go abroad to re-activate my h1B? I saw some people transferred sucessfully
Any thoughts? Thank you very much.
wallpaper Cool Fringe Hairstyles Trends
rick_rajvanshi
11-12 11:54 AM
As bad as it can get for some immigrants.
Money issues may have contributed to murder-suicide | KATU.com - News, Weather and Sports - Portland, Oregon | News (http://www.katu.com/news/69805837.html)
please pray for the departed souls.
Money issues may have contributed to murder-suicide | KATU.com - News, Weather and Sports - Portland, Oregon | News (http://www.katu.com/news/69805837.html)
please pray for the departed souls.
Macaca
07-23 07:32 PM
Reid's Anti-Reform Maneuvers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/22/AR2007072200881.html?nav=hcmodule) By Robert D. Novak (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/robert+d.+novak/) Washington Post, July 23, 2007
When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid picked up his ball and went home after his staged all-night session last week, he saved from possible embarrassment one of the least regular members of his Democratic caucus: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Reform Republican Tom Coburn had ready an amendment to the defense authorization bill removing Nelson's earmark funding a Nebraska-based company whose officials include Nelson's son. Such an effort became impossible when Reid pulled the bill.
That Reid's action had this effect was mere coincidence. He knew that Sen. Carl Levin's amendment to the defense bill mandating a troop withdrawal from Iraq would fall short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate, and Reid planned from the start to pull the bill after the all-night session, designed to satisfy antiwar zealots, was completed. But Reid is also working behind the scenes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to undermine earmark transparency and prevent open debate on spending proposals such as Nelson's.
These antics fit the continuing decline of the Senate, including an unwritten rules change requiring 60 votes to pass any meaningful bill. When I arrived on Capitol Hill 50 years ago, Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson (like Reid today) had a slim Democratic majority and faced a Republican president, but he was not burdened with the 60-vote rule. While Johnson did use chicanery, Reid resorts to brute force that shatters the Senate's facade of civilized discourse. Reid is plotting to strip anti-earmark transparency from the final version of ethics legislation passed by the Senate and House, with tacit support from Republican senators and the GOP leadership.
At stake is the fate of Coburn's "Reid amendment," previously passed by the Senate and so called because it would bar earmarks benefiting a senator's family members such as Reid's four lobbyist sons and son-in-law. Nelson's current $7.5 million earmark for software helps 21st Century Systems Inc. (21CSI), which employs the senator's son, Patrick Nelson, as its marketing director. The company gets 80 percent of its funds from federal grants, mostly through earmarks. With nine offices scattered among states represented by appropriators in Congress, the company has in recent years spent $1.1 million to lobby Congress and $160,000 in congressional campaign contributions. "As of April," the Omaha World-Herald reported, "only one piece of [the company's] software has been used -- to help guard a single Marine camp in Iraq -- and it was no longer in use."
In requesting the 21CSI earmark, Nelson did not disclose his son's employment. "There's no requirement that he disclose that," a Nelson spokesman told this column. "But frankly, in this case, we didn't disclose it because it's so public." An April 24 letter from Levin giving senators instructions on how to request an earmark made no mention of the "Reid amendment" that had been passed by the Senate three months earlier but that required only certification that no senator's spouse would benefit from an earmark. Inclusion of Nelson's son, however, would be required if the ethics bill provision passes.
When the defense authorization bill came up last week, Coburn prepared amendments to eliminate the Nelson earmark and the most notorious earmark pending in Congress: Democratic Rep. John Murtha's proposed $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center in his Pennsylvania district. Reid's plan to satisfy antiwar activists with an all-night debate averted debate, for now, on those two earmarks.
Reid, the soft-spoken trial lawyer from Searchlight, Nev., has tended to suppress free expression in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body in his tumultuous 6 1/2 months as majority leader. Last week, he cut off an attempt by Sen. Arlen Specter, the veteran moderate Republican, to respond to him with an abruptness that I had not witnessed in a half-century of Senate watching. When Specter finally got the floor, he declared: "Nothing is done here until the majority leader decides to exercise his power to keep the Senate in all night on a meaningless, insulting session. . . . Last night's performance made us the laughingstock of the world." It may get worse if plans to eviscerate ethics legislation are pursued.
When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid picked up his ball and went home after his staged all-night session last week, he saved from possible embarrassment one of the least regular members of his Democratic caucus: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Reform Republican Tom Coburn had ready an amendment to the defense authorization bill removing Nelson's earmark funding a Nebraska-based company whose officials include Nelson's son. Such an effort became impossible when Reid pulled the bill.
That Reid's action had this effect was mere coincidence. He knew that Sen. Carl Levin's amendment to the defense bill mandating a troop withdrawal from Iraq would fall short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate, and Reid planned from the start to pull the bill after the all-night session, designed to satisfy antiwar zealots, was completed. But Reid is also working behind the scenes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to undermine earmark transparency and prevent open debate on spending proposals such as Nelson's.
These antics fit the continuing decline of the Senate, including an unwritten rules change requiring 60 votes to pass any meaningful bill. When I arrived on Capitol Hill 50 years ago, Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson (like Reid today) had a slim Democratic majority and faced a Republican president, but he was not burdened with the 60-vote rule. While Johnson did use chicanery, Reid resorts to brute force that shatters the Senate's facade of civilized discourse. Reid is plotting to strip anti-earmark transparency from the final version of ethics legislation passed by the Senate and House, with tacit support from Republican senators and the GOP leadership.
At stake is the fate of Coburn's "Reid amendment," previously passed by the Senate and so called because it would bar earmarks benefiting a senator's family members such as Reid's four lobbyist sons and son-in-law. Nelson's current $7.5 million earmark for software helps 21st Century Systems Inc. (21CSI), which employs the senator's son, Patrick Nelson, as its marketing director. The company gets 80 percent of its funds from federal grants, mostly through earmarks. With nine offices scattered among states represented by appropriators in Congress, the company has in recent years spent $1.1 million to lobby Congress and $160,000 in congressional campaign contributions. "As of April," the Omaha World-Herald reported, "only one piece of [the company's] software has been used -- to help guard a single Marine camp in Iraq -- and it was no longer in use."
In requesting the 21CSI earmark, Nelson did not disclose his son's employment. "There's no requirement that he disclose that," a Nelson spokesman told this column. "But frankly, in this case, we didn't disclose it because it's so public." An April 24 letter from Levin giving senators instructions on how to request an earmark made no mention of the "Reid amendment" that had been passed by the Senate three months earlier but that required only certification that no senator's spouse would benefit from an earmark. Inclusion of Nelson's son, however, would be required if the ethics bill provision passes.
When the defense authorization bill came up last week, Coburn prepared amendments to eliminate the Nelson earmark and the most notorious earmark pending in Congress: Democratic Rep. John Murtha's proposed $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center in his Pennsylvania district. Reid's plan to satisfy antiwar activists with an all-night debate averted debate, for now, on those two earmarks.
Reid, the soft-spoken trial lawyer from Searchlight, Nev., has tended to suppress free expression in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body in his tumultuous 6 1/2 months as majority leader. Last week, he cut off an attempt by Sen. Arlen Specter, the veteran moderate Republican, to respond to him with an abruptness that I had not witnessed in a half-century of Senate watching. When Specter finally got the floor, he declared: "Nothing is done here until the majority leader decides to exercise his power to keep the Senate in all night on a meaningless, insulting session. . . . Last night's performance made us the laughingstock of the world." It may get worse if plans to eviscerate ethics legislation are pursued.
2011 Side Fringe Hairstyles
Blog Feeds
08-03 12:50 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
Take 15 minutes today and watch this very moving Frontline documentary about the devastating effect of the Postville, Iowa ICE raid on the town and on the two villages in Guatemala where the immigrants came from. http://bit.ly/GWBVu[/URL]
The Postville operation was the largest ICE raid in U.S. history and resulted in the arrest, detention, and convictions of nearly 400 undocumented workers, most of whom were poor, uneducated Guatemalan farmers.
It makes me wonder what Iowa leaders are doing to help the people of Postville, who now live in economic ruin; especially Senator Tom Harkin, who has never condemed the unjust Postville prosecutions nor visited the town since the raid, yet recommended Stephanie Rose, one of the lead Postville prosecutors, to be U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-87808768427206364?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
[url=http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/08/tale-of-two-villages.html]More... (http://bit.ly/GWBVu)
Take 15 minutes today and watch this very moving Frontline documentary about the devastating effect of the Postville, Iowa ICE raid on the town and on the two villages in Guatemala where the immigrants came from. http://bit.ly/GWBVu[/URL]
The Postville operation was the largest ICE raid in U.S. history and resulted in the arrest, detention, and convictions of nearly 400 undocumented workers, most of whom were poor, uneducated Guatemalan farmers.
It makes me wonder what Iowa leaders are doing to help the people of Postville, who now live in economic ruin; especially Senator Tom Harkin, who has never condemed the unjust Postville prosecutions nor visited the town since the raid, yet recommended Stephanie Rose, one of the lead Postville prosecutors, to be U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-87808768427206364?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
[url=http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/08/tale-of-two-villages.html]More... (http://bit.ly/GWBVu)
more...
Blog Feeds
07-23 11:40 AM
A Federal Judge has certified a nationwide class in a challenge to the USCIS's restrictive interpretation of the "automatic conversion" clause in the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) of 2002. This opens the way for children who have "aged-out" to be reunited with their parents. The USCIS has resisted implementing this important section of law for the past seven years. Just a few weeks ago, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), in Matter of Wang, adopted the government's restrictive interpretation of the automatic conversion clause. On July 16, Federal Judge James Selna (Central District, California), over government objections, made his...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/07/cspa-update.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/07/cspa-update.html)
immig4me
07-26 10:02 AM
Connect the World: Blog Archive - How has immigration affected your life? � - CNN.com Blogs (http://connecttheworld.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/26/does-immigration-help-or-hinder/)
Are you an immigrant? How have you found your transition from one country to another? Do you think the majority of people are welcoming? Do you oppose immigration? Should there be tougher regulations in your country?
Please leave your comments below - we would also love to use your comments on air, so please let us know if you are interested in appearing on CNN's Connect the World. And don't forgot to let us know where you're writing from.
Are you an immigrant? How have you found your transition from one country to another? Do you think the majority of people are welcoming? Do you oppose immigration? Should there be tougher regulations in your country?
Please leave your comments below - we would also love to use your comments on air, so please let us know if you are interested in appearing on CNN's Connect the World. And don't forgot to let us know where you're writing from.
more...
Blog Feeds
12-18 09:50 AM
Just when U.S. employers thought the bad vibes emanating from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) could get no worse, the agency tasked with deciding whether to approve or reject requests for immigration benefits has come up with VIBE -- its new Verification Initiative for Business Enterprises which costs a whopping $35,506,760.43. Just imagine . . . . . . a program in which USCIS, by using VIBE, "will acquire information from an [Independent Information Provider (IIP)] . . ., which can be used to verify the eligibility of a company while detecting multiple types of misrepresentations." . . ....
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/12/bad-bad-bad-immigration-vibrations-from-uscis.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/12/bad-bad-bad-immigration-vibrations-from-uscis.html)
2010 Side Fringe Hairstyles
aldorr
06-28 11:54 PM
So, I was up on the roof at work and happened to have an orange with me... so I balanced it on my head and snapped this pic looking like I'm about to suck the Transamerica Pyramid up through a straw. Oh, then I did a bit of editing in Photoshop.
Enjoy,
aldorr
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3230/orangeself.jpg
http://img197.imageshack.us/my.php?image=orangeself.jpg
Enjoy,
aldorr
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3230/orangeself.jpg
http://img197.imageshack.us/my.php?image=orangeself.jpg
more...
Macaca
08-01 08:03 PM
The Speaker In Charge (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073101628.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Harold Meyerson (meyersonh@washpost.com), August 1, 2007
This is one of those odd weeks when Congress may actually work. Both houses are likely to pass Democratic bills to expand SCHIP, the children's health coverage program. Yesterday, the House enacted lobbying reform, and the Senate may follow suit tomorrow. Also yesterday, the House passed a bill restoring the right of victims of pay discrimination to sue their employers.
In short, it's one of those weeks when Nancy Pelosi has no doubts about the wisdom of her decision to become speaker of the House.
"What's it like?" she asked herself, beaming, at the conclusion of a breakfast meeting with roughly 20 liberal journalists yesterday morning.
"It's fabulous! Absolutely fabulous!"
It can't always be thus. Her biggest frustration, of course, is Congress's inability to end the war in Iraq, which she terms "a huge moral catastrophe for the country." It is the public's biggest frustration as well, she says, and the main reason that popular support for Congress has plummeted.
In September, Iraq will once again be Congress's chief item of business, when Gen. David Petraeus delivers his state-of-the-war report.
Pelosi (understandably, given the administration's mountain of misrepresentation on all war-related matters) is wary. "The plural of anecdote is not data," she said. "I'm very concerned they'll pass off anecdotal successes as progress in Iraq."
The question in September will be whether congressional Republicans continue to support President Bush's open-ended commitment to keeping U.S. forces in Iraq while a civil war rages around them. To date, the Republicans' strategy, and not just on the war, has been to thwart the Democrats at every turn and to use the Senate's 60-vote supermajority requirement both to create a "do-nothing" Congress against which they can run and to spare their president from having to veto popular legislation. (Why they care about sparing Bush -- he will never face voters again; they will -- plunges us into the murk of abnormal psychology.)
The GOP strategy is not without its pitfalls. Republicans have succeeded in tanking Congress's approval ratings, but polls consistently show the public, most importantly in swing districts, preferring Democrats to Republicans. With this week's vote on expanding SCHIP, though, Democrats are convinced that the price of blocking health care for uninsured children is more than many Republicans are willing to pay. Bush has vowed to veto the legislation; Pelosi, noting with an almost incredulous glee that the administration will stand athwart children's health care on the grounds of opposing a higher tobacco tax, says, simply, "Welcome to this discussion."
Not all discussions, even in a good week, are so pleasurable to anticipate. Asked about the resolution that her congressional colleague Jay Inslee of Washington has introduced to impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Pelosi put her hands to her temples as if to ward off a headache. For the past year, Pelosi has made clear to her colleagues and the public alike that she has no interest in pursuing the impeachment option, though Gonzales is certainly doing his damnedest to change her mind. She remains unpersuaded, believing that impeachment would fail and in the process would make weeks such as this one -- a week in which the public's business is at last getting done -- far more uncommon than they already are.
Pelosi understands the gravity of the damage that the administration has done to the Constitution and why that has impelled some of her colleagues to advocate impeachment. "If I were not the speaker and I were not in Congress," she said, very quietly, as she concluded her answer, "I would probably be advocating for impeachment." But the consequences she foresees from stopping the nation's business for an unwinnable fight outweighs those considerations.
Pelosi deserves considerable credit for holding her party together on a range of divisive issues, but she plainly views the coming fight among House Democrats on fuel efficiency standards as irrepressible.
The energy bill the House will pass this week contains no provisions that would raise those standards; such provisions, if any, await the outcome of a battle between Pelosi and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, the Democrat who has represented Detroit and the auto industry in Congress since 1955 (that is, before tailfins).
"I respect all our chairmen," Pelosi said. But the legislation, she continued, isn't about them. "It's about our children's ability to breathe clean air. Nothing less than the planet is at stake. I love him [Dingell] dearly, but we have to prevail. . . . The forces at work here [against stricter standards] are rich and entrenched," she concluded, "and it takes just a few [votes] to prevent us from unleashing the future."
Thus, the most elegant of happy warriors, in a week when it's fun to be speaker.
This is one of those odd weeks when Congress may actually work. Both houses are likely to pass Democratic bills to expand SCHIP, the children's health coverage program. Yesterday, the House enacted lobbying reform, and the Senate may follow suit tomorrow. Also yesterday, the House passed a bill restoring the right of victims of pay discrimination to sue their employers.
In short, it's one of those weeks when Nancy Pelosi has no doubts about the wisdom of her decision to become speaker of the House.
"What's it like?" she asked herself, beaming, at the conclusion of a breakfast meeting with roughly 20 liberal journalists yesterday morning.
"It's fabulous! Absolutely fabulous!"
It can't always be thus. Her biggest frustration, of course, is Congress's inability to end the war in Iraq, which she terms "a huge moral catastrophe for the country." It is the public's biggest frustration as well, she says, and the main reason that popular support for Congress has plummeted.
In September, Iraq will once again be Congress's chief item of business, when Gen. David Petraeus delivers his state-of-the-war report.
Pelosi (understandably, given the administration's mountain of misrepresentation on all war-related matters) is wary. "The plural of anecdote is not data," she said. "I'm very concerned they'll pass off anecdotal successes as progress in Iraq."
The question in September will be whether congressional Republicans continue to support President Bush's open-ended commitment to keeping U.S. forces in Iraq while a civil war rages around them. To date, the Republicans' strategy, and not just on the war, has been to thwart the Democrats at every turn and to use the Senate's 60-vote supermajority requirement both to create a "do-nothing" Congress against which they can run and to spare their president from having to veto popular legislation. (Why they care about sparing Bush -- he will never face voters again; they will -- plunges us into the murk of abnormal psychology.)
The GOP strategy is not without its pitfalls. Republicans have succeeded in tanking Congress's approval ratings, but polls consistently show the public, most importantly in swing districts, preferring Democrats to Republicans. With this week's vote on expanding SCHIP, though, Democrats are convinced that the price of blocking health care for uninsured children is more than many Republicans are willing to pay. Bush has vowed to veto the legislation; Pelosi, noting with an almost incredulous glee that the administration will stand athwart children's health care on the grounds of opposing a higher tobacco tax, says, simply, "Welcome to this discussion."
Not all discussions, even in a good week, are so pleasurable to anticipate. Asked about the resolution that her congressional colleague Jay Inslee of Washington has introduced to impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Pelosi put her hands to her temples as if to ward off a headache. For the past year, Pelosi has made clear to her colleagues and the public alike that she has no interest in pursuing the impeachment option, though Gonzales is certainly doing his damnedest to change her mind. She remains unpersuaded, believing that impeachment would fail and in the process would make weeks such as this one -- a week in which the public's business is at last getting done -- far more uncommon than they already are.
Pelosi understands the gravity of the damage that the administration has done to the Constitution and why that has impelled some of her colleagues to advocate impeachment. "If I were not the speaker and I were not in Congress," she said, very quietly, as she concluded her answer, "I would probably be advocating for impeachment." But the consequences she foresees from stopping the nation's business for an unwinnable fight outweighs those considerations.
Pelosi deserves considerable credit for holding her party together on a range of divisive issues, but she plainly views the coming fight among House Democrats on fuel efficiency standards as irrepressible.
The energy bill the House will pass this week contains no provisions that would raise those standards; such provisions, if any, await the outcome of a battle between Pelosi and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, the Democrat who has represented Detroit and the auto industry in Congress since 1955 (that is, before tailfins).
"I respect all our chairmen," Pelosi said. But the legislation, she continued, isn't about them. "It's about our children's ability to breathe clean air. Nothing less than the planet is at stake. I love him [Dingell] dearly, but we have to prevail. . . . The forces at work here [against stricter standards] are rich and entrenched," she concluded, "and it takes just a few [votes] to prevent us from unleashing the future."
Thus, the most elegant of happy warriors, in a week when it's fun to be speaker.
hair Fresh Long Hairstyles 2009 For
ohm
01-29 09:49 PM
How do i file extension for H1b ....my h1b expires tomorrow..can i do it online...this is the first extension...
more...
Blog Feeds
08-30 09:40 AM
Most people think the Border Patrol just patrols the border. But Nina Bernstein reports in the New York Times this morning that the agency is involved in doing checks on Amtrak trains going between major cities like Chicago and New York that don't actually go by the border. Border Patrol officers roam the trains asking people for their papers documenting US citizenship or a legal right to be in the US. The story reports that many people - particularly students - have been removed from the trains even though they had proper documentation. In one case, a Pakistani student was...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/coercive-unconstitutional-and-tainted-by-racial-profiling.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/coercive-unconstitutional-and-tainted-by-racial-profiling.html)
hot Fringe Bangs Haircut 2009
man-woman-and-gc
08-25 12:39 PM
How quickly can we change the job safely after receiving a GC?
The next job may not be of the same job description. Are there any formalities that we need to fulfill if we are changing jobs immediately after receiving GC(withink a couple of months)
Thanks in Advance.
The next job may not be of the same job description. Are there any formalities that we need to fulfill if we are changing jobs immediately after receiving GC(withink a couple of months)
Thanks in Advance.
more...
house Haircut Styles presents Bangs
GCard_Dream
04-30 02:26 PM
For those of you who either are residents (Citizens or PRs) or Canada or have been thinking about becoming residents of Canada but working in US, please share your experience in terms of:
1. How you maintain your residency (or non-residency) in both countries.
2. What are the tax implications if you maintain residency in both countries,
specially if you own property in Canada.
I have heard stories about tax implications in Canada if you own property there even if you permanently live an work in the US. Is that true? Would you be considered a resident in Canada for tax purposes just because you own property (such as vacation homes) but live permanently in US.
I currently own a property in Canada but have been living and working in US for past 8 years and really worried about any tax implications in Canada because of the property. Any help would be very much appreciated.
1. How you maintain your residency (or non-residency) in both countries.
2. What are the tax implications if you maintain residency in both countries,
specially if you own property in Canada.
I have heard stories about tax implications in Canada if you own property there even if you permanently live an work in the US. Is that true? Would you be considered a resident in Canada for tax purposes just because you own property (such as vacation homes) but live permanently in US.
I currently own a property in Canada but have been living and working in US for past 8 years and really worried about any tax implications in Canada because of the property. Any help would be very much appreciated.
tattoo d38f5_Best-Bangs-Hairstyles-
augustus
07-30 12:33 PM
Dear all,
My husband and I had applied last july for I-485. I am expected to renew my Advance parole document this month i.e August. I have not sent any documents to USCIS as of now. Today I checked the status of my LUDs and I see that there is a change in LUD status of Advance Parole, it now shows 27th july 2008.
Could anyone tell me why this change when no documents have been even sent? No other of my cases are showing change such as I-485, EAD.
Thank you so much.
Regards,
Augustus
My husband and I had applied last july for I-485. I am expected to renew my Advance parole document this month i.e August. I have not sent any documents to USCIS as of now. Today I checked the status of my LUDs and I see that there is a change in LUD status of Advance Parole, it now shows 27th july 2008.
Could anyone tell me why this change when no documents have been even sent? No other of my cases are showing change such as I-485, EAD.
Thank you so much.
Regards,
Augustus
more...
pictures angs Hairstyles 2011
KarachiWala
12-12 07:26 PM
go ahead Brainiacs..
Correct me I am wrong here:
AP allows you to enter US without a valid visa.
EAD allows you to work in US for any employer.
Untill and unless someone utlizes his EAD, he is still on H1 (if he has valid H1) doesn't matter he enters US using AP. Am I correct?
Then question arrises, If H1 holder changes his job then he needs to transfer his H1 only and not use EAD. Is this possible to have H1 renewed and transfered even though one has EAD approved, meaning is it compulsory to use EAD one you get it?
Rgds
KarachiWala
Correct me I am wrong here:
AP allows you to enter US without a valid visa.
EAD allows you to work in US for any employer.
Untill and unless someone utlizes his EAD, he is still on H1 (if he has valid H1) doesn't matter he enters US using AP. Am I correct?
Then question arrises, If H1 holder changes his job then he needs to transfer his H1 only and not use EAD. Is this possible to have H1 renewed and transfered even though one has EAD approved, meaning is it compulsory to use EAD one you get it?
Rgds
KarachiWala
dresses long hairstyles with side
hero911
04-21 09:36 PM
Sunset in Malaysia... :)
http://jaime.trainingmalaysia.com/tmo2/images/index/stamp_malaysia.gif
http://jaime.trainingmalaysia.com/tmo2/images/index/stamp_malaysia.gif
more...
makeup Straight Hairstyles with Bangs
Scythe
03-17 04:18 PM
It's things you like.
girlfriend hairstyle fringes.
dreamworld
06-30 12:02 AM
if i were you, at this stage of GC drama. hold on another week and see how the GC drama continues. Then plan on your career. We have already messed our career with GC drama. So wait for a week before making any employer change...
hairstyles Modern Fringe Hairstyle Fringe
cannongeorge
03-12 10:03 AM
Trying to help Mother-In-Law over from China for visit. Unsuccessful w/ tourist Visa process, so now going for Green Card. Received Notice of Decision against me, unable to establish my Petitioner wife is daughter of Beneficiary Mother-In-Law. No hospital records. Previous evidence was "Notarial Certificate of Relationship." I have just received new evidence "Notarial Certificate of Birth" from civil authorities - along with affidavit from school teacher - I need to file EOIR-29, I think to call it APPEAL, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO RECONSIDER - can anyone provide a "go-by" as to what format my letter should take? Is letter format acceptable or is formal pleading format needed?
Time is of the essence, I have to file within 24 hours or give up and pursue DNA testing....
THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR ANY HELP/SUGGESTIONS YOU HAVE FOR ME
Time is of the essence, I have to file within 24 hours or give up and pursue DNA testing....
THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR ANY HELP/SUGGESTIONS YOU HAVE FOR ME
raysaikat
07-20 11:03 AM
I finally got my BC from India, now my lawyer tells me that it should have Mothers maiden name, Is that right? I cannot find any info which says that.
Birth certificates formats are entirely local. In India each state; maybe even each district has its own format. Your lawyer may have seen some that has this information, or s/he simply does not believe you that what you got is the genuine one. In any case, USCIS does not (and cannot) require any specific format.
Birth certificates formats are entirely local. In India each state; maybe even each district has its own format. Your lawyer may have seen some that has this information, or s/he simply does not believe you that what you got is the genuine one. In any case, USCIS does not (and cannot) require any specific format.
barath_india
02-07 02:19 PM
It depends upon your luck with AP. Because you never know when they will be approving your AP and in case it is lost in Mail (it happens to lot of people) and you need to re-apply with fees again. This is very tricky....... You may get it in few weeks or few months or never. Not to discourage you, it really how lucky you are. All the best. I always will file 3-4 months in advance.
No comments:
Post a Comment