Temp_worker
08-21 07:41 PM
Friends, Please let me know your input-
Here is my backgound -
1.Current status working on H1B 8th year extension for company A
2.Labor and I-140 is approved � EB3 PD 04/2006 - Company A
3.485 pending applied in August 2007 (> 180 days) - Company A
4.EAD & AP approved - Company A
5.Wife on H4 Status not filed for her 485 as she was not here.
I want do H1b transfer & work for another company B -(Job code & job duties are little different)
I don't want to use AC21 - just continue with Company B on H1 B transfer.
I am doing H1b transfer nothing else once dates are current will add my wife.
Am I doing something wrong or screwing up my GC process?
Please advise
Here is my backgound -
1.Current status working on H1B 8th year extension for company A
2.Labor and I-140 is approved � EB3 PD 04/2006 - Company A
3.485 pending applied in August 2007 (> 180 days) - Company A
4.EAD & AP approved - Company A
5.Wife on H4 Status not filed for her 485 as she was not here.
I want do H1b transfer & work for another company B -(Job code & job duties are little different)
I don't want to use AC21 - just continue with Company B on H1 B transfer.
I am doing H1b transfer nothing else once dates are current will add my wife.
Am I doing something wrong or screwing up my GC process?
Please advise
wallpaper Dodge Avenger Images
h1dedorebaba
05-24 12:09 PM
Hi,
I guess it is taking too much of time to get the receipt notice for H1 transfers/ext due to backlog. Let us fill out the following details and it will help everyone who is waiting for the receipt notice..
I saw one more thread like this but it was purely for premium cases.
Please fill in the following details:
Date Sent:
Receipt notice date:
Service Center: CSC/VSC/NSC/TSC
Approval date:
Processing type: Premium/Regular
Thanks.
Mine:
H1 Transfer
Date Sent: 05/22/07
Receipt notice date: Waiting
Service Center: CSC
Approval date: Waiting
Processing type: Regular
I guess it is taking too much of time to get the receipt notice for H1 transfers/ext due to backlog. Let us fill out the following details and it will help everyone who is waiting for the receipt notice..
I saw one more thread like this but it was purely for premium cases.
Please fill in the following details:
Date Sent:
Receipt notice date:
Service Center: CSC/VSC/NSC/TSC
Approval date:
Processing type: Premium/Regular
Thanks.
Mine:
H1 Transfer
Date Sent: 05/22/07
Receipt notice date: Waiting
Service Center: CSC
Approval date: Waiting
Processing type: Regular
imh1b
05-19 09:41 AM
I like to read this Immigrant of the day post. It makes me feel proud of being an immigrant.
2011 Dodge Avenger 2008 SE - Grille
foobar2001
02-09 01:10 AM
My friend is an F1 student (citizen of India) who has been in the US for 3 years as a grad student. She has paid US taxes on stipend/fellowship received from US university while pursuing grad studies (filing taxes as a non resident in US, since the first 5 years on F1 are not counted towards substantial presence test).
Does she need to also pay taxes on this stipend in india, or report this income in india? AFAIK, no taxes need to be paid in India on this US stipend, but I couldnt find any authoritative reference online.
Am asking, since someone I know recently got a letter from IT dept in india saying that the US authorities reported $10K of income when that person was a student (this was a fellowship from the university) - and the letter goes on to ask the person to meet someone at the indian IT department.
thanks,
-fb
Does she need to also pay taxes on this stipend in india, or report this income in india? AFAIK, no taxes need to be paid in India on this US stipend, but I couldnt find any authoritative reference online.
Am asking, since someone I know recently got a letter from IT dept in india saying that the US authorities reported $10K of income when that person was a student (this was a fellowship from the university) - and the letter goes on to ask the person to meet someone at the indian IT department.
thanks,
-fb
more...
aaaa4321
08-25 09:41 AM
Does anyone have an idea about 8/24 receipt update as it is not out yet.
Please advice
Please advice
xtronics
11-11 09:56 AM
Ok. After my lawyers call, they corrected her name. The "a" is still missing from my name though. She thinks it won't be a problem at the port of entry.Hope she is right
more...
watzgc
08-28 05:42 PM
Friends,
I just received EAD card from employer office and noticed spelling mistake on my Firstname. It is USCIS mistake.
I could not find thread with answer.
Office paralegal called USCIS, look like asked us file again.
do we need to send back the original card recd from UCCIS ?.
Anybody has experience on this one?
Thanks for reading/answer.
Applied : 09-Jul-2008
Recd : 25-Aug-2008
I just received EAD card from employer office and noticed spelling mistake on my Firstname. It is USCIS mistake.
I could not find thread with answer.
Office paralegal called USCIS, look like asked us file again.
do we need to send back the original card recd from UCCIS ?.
Anybody has experience on this one?
Thanks for reading/answer.
Applied : 09-Jul-2008
Recd : 25-Aug-2008
2010 2008 dodge avenger rt 14
sounakc
05-27 12:02 PM
thanks for your prompt response.
more...
looivy
09-27 12:18 PM
Pamposh did you also apply to Vermont service center?
Does anyone know someone who got a reciept notice after sending the application to Vermont?
Does anyone know someone who got a reciept notice after sending the application to Vermont?
hair 2008 Dodge Avenger R/T AWD
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
more...
gimme_GC2006
08-15 09:14 PM
What? Just woke up?
There are already zillion threads on this topic..
buddy lookaround before creating thread
There are already zillion threads on this topic..
buddy lookaround before creating thread
hot USED 2008 Dodge Avenger SE
marvelag
03-10 10:36 PM
Hi All,
I got F1 VISA for X University and then I transfered to Y University.
Now I have lost I20 for that X University.
I am filing for H1B now and I am supposed to submit all prior I20s.
What would be the potential problem if I do not submit the I20 of X univ?
Is there any way to retrieve the I20 from the university?
I got F1 VISA for X University and then I transfered to Y University.
Now I have lost I20 for that X University.
I am filing for H1B now and I am supposed to submit all prior I20s.
What would be the potential problem if I do not submit the I20 of X univ?
Is there any way to retrieve the I20 from the university?
more...
house 2008 Dodge Avenger SE picture,
kirupa
07-16 07:22 AM
Hello Drew,
I have not found many sites that go beyond the basics of Swift 3D such as mine (www.kirupa.com/developer/...ndex.htm). (http://www.kirupa.com/developer/swift/index.htm).) I found 3 tutorials regarding Swift 3D on Flashkit: www.flashkit.com/cgi-bin/...y=swift+3d (http://www.flashkit.com/cgi-bin/tutorials/search.cgi?all=0&query=swift+3d)
I have not found many sites that go beyond the basics of Swift 3D such as mine (www.kirupa.com/developer/...ndex.htm). (http://www.kirupa.com/developer/swift/index.htm).) I found 3 tutorials regarding Swift 3D on Flashkit: www.flashkit.com/cgi-bin/...y=swift+3d (http://www.flashkit.com/cgi-bin/tutorials/search.cgi?all=0&query=swift+3d)
tattoo 2008 Dodge Avenger R T Dash
sachuin23
01-20 07:26 PM
This interesting article was posted on ILW.com
ILW.COM - immigration news: The Trials And Tribulations Of Highly Educated Immigrants (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2010,0120-donoghue.shtm)
ILW.COM - immigration news: The Trials And Tribulations Of Highly Educated Immigrants (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2010,0120-donoghue.shtm)
more...
pictures 2008 Dodge Avenger : Photo:
kk_kk
08-13 05:15 PM
If you don't need it. You don't have to apply for AP. You can apply when you need it.
dresses The 2008 Dodge Avenger « Dodge
vinabath
08-30 11:53 AM
My status has been changed from H4 to H1 in June and I am currently in the USA. I am planning to attend Visa Interview in Chennai. Will it be a visa renewal??
more...
makeup 2008 - 2009 Dodge Avenger 4DR
singh84a
02-23 08:09 PM
Hello All,
I am an Indian citizen and a Permanent Resident of Canada. My Fiance is a US Citizen and we're planning to settle down soon. I also have a valid 10 year US B1/B2 Visa.
I know that if one marries a US Citizen you can get US Green Card but I am not sure about the processes. I want to know what is the best procedure so that I can be in the US quickly and also have my green card.
I know there is something known as Fiance visa but I'm not sure how it works.
Can anyone please elaborate and guide me into this situation.
Thanks in appreciation.
I am an Indian citizen and a Permanent Resident of Canada. My Fiance is a US Citizen and we're planning to settle down soon. I also have a valid 10 year US B1/B2 Visa.
I know that if one marries a US Citizen you can get US Green Card but I am not sure about the processes. I want to know what is the best procedure so that I can be in the US quickly and also have my green card.
I know there is something known as Fiance visa but I'm not sure how it works.
Can anyone please elaborate and guide me into this situation.
Thanks in appreciation.
girlfriend The 2009 Dodge Avenger is a
gc_chahiye
07-25 05:49 PM
poll to see how many June/July filers had I-140 approved, and how many dont
hairstyles Dodge Avenger SXT 2008
pappu
10-25 12:04 AM
About a year ago, I signed paperwork to bail my friend for a DUI arrest. Will this cause any issue with FBI namecheck for me ??
your IV screen name might....:D:D
your IV screen name might....:D:D
michellezbb
04-18 10:31 PM
I saw a thread creatted by IV about how to open a company when 485 pending yesterday, but I couldn't find it now. Anyone can help? tons of thanks
JunRN
09-13 07:32 AM
Thanks....that was truly helpful. So I have to expect it in the mail because I already got my Receipt Notice for I-485.
No comments:
Post a Comment