rahul2009
04-26 04:42 AM
Hi,
I recently received an e-mail from my Lawyers about notification of H-1B Approval Notice (I-797).
My Masters OPT has expired in January 2009. Hence, I enrolled in a degree at a new school to get CPT work permit. My CPT work permit is expiring on 05/09/09.
As my H1-B petition is approved and the change of status has been applied, I came to know that my F-1 status is terminated, when I went to school to get updated I-20, with the new work permit.
What can I do at this moment, to get work permit.
Am I eligible for "Cap-Gap" relief?
Please let me know.
I recently received an e-mail from my Lawyers about notification of H-1B Approval Notice (I-797).
My Masters OPT has expired in January 2009. Hence, I enrolled in a degree at a new school to get CPT work permit. My CPT work permit is expiring on 05/09/09.
As my H1-B petition is approved and the change of status has been applied, I came to know that my F-1 status is terminated, when I went to school to get updated I-20, with the new work permit.
What can I do at this moment, to get work permit.
Am I eligible for "Cap-Gap" relief?
Please let me know.
wallpaper wallpapers of cute abies.
techie.dude
05-18 12:13 PM
Immigration Status Verification for Drivers' Licenses, Public Benefits, and Social Security Cards: A Conversation with USCIS
May 25, 2011, 2:00 � 3:00 EST
The Ombudsman's Office invites you to participate in a public teleconference on "Immigration Status Verification for Drivers' Licenses, Public Benefits, and Social Security Cards: A Conversation with USCIS." The Ombudsman's Office will interview guest speakers from USCIS' Office of Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program. SAVE is a status verification system used by Social Security, Public Benefits programs, and certain state and local licensing programs. We will reserve time for your questions, comments, and suggestions.
To participate, please RSVP to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov.
Source: DHS | The Ombudsman's Public Teleconference Series (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1171038701035.shtm)
May 25, 2011, 2:00 � 3:00 EST
The Ombudsman's Office invites you to participate in a public teleconference on "Immigration Status Verification for Drivers' Licenses, Public Benefits, and Social Security Cards: A Conversation with USCIS." The Ombudsman's Office will interview guest speakers from USCIS' Office of Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program. SAVE is a status verification system used by Social Security, Public Benefits programs, and certain state and local licensing programs. We will reserve time for your questions, comments, and suggestions.
To participate, please RSVP to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov.
Source: DHS | The Ombudsman's Public Teleconference Series (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1171038701035.shtm)
greyhair
04-30 12:58 AM
Superman Renounces His U.S. Citizenship in 900th Issue of Action Comics - FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/04/28/superman-renounces-citizenship-00th-issue/)
2011 More Australian abies than
Macaca
07-22 05:33 PM
For Real Drama, Senate Should Engage In a True Filibuster (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_8/ornstein/19415-1.html) By Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute, July 18, 2007
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
more...
Blog Feeds
12-18 09:40 AM
I heard a fascinating interview of Kati Marton by Bob Edwards this weekend and am going to buy her new book Enemies of the People. The Hungarian-born Ms. Marton is a former ABC News reporter and NPR international correspondent. Journalism is in her blood. Her parents were reporters in Hungary for UPI and the AP and they risked their lives trying to report the truth in that country in the years leading up to the 1956 revolution. She writes about her parents' arrests by the secret police and the experience of living her first eight years in Hungary in her...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/12/immigrant-of-the-day-kati-martin---journalist.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/12/immigrant-of-the-day-kati-martin---journalist.html)
.fee
07-11 11:48 AM
My entry, thought it'd be fun to have a go.
http://www.kirupa.com/forum/%5Burl=http://img29.imageshack.us/i/orangewallpaperlg.jpg/%5D%5Bimg=http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/6295/orangewallpaperlg.th.jpg%5D%5B/url%5Dhttp://img29.imageshack.us/img29/6295/orangewallpaperlg.jpg
http://www.kirupa.com/forum/%5Burl=http://img29.imageshack.us/i/orangewallpaperlg.jpg/%5D%5Bimg=http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/6295/orangewallpaperlg.th.jpg%5D%5B/url%5Dhttp://img29.imageshack.us/img29/6295/orangewallpaperlg.jpg
more...
GetGC08
07-30 02:11 PM
Hello,
In my LCA(H1B) Prevailing wage is $ 55K & in my Labor(PERM) application Prevailing wage is $ 65K.
My labor(PERM) has been approved & I-140 is in process at TSC.
My question is
This diffrence between LCA mentioned prevailing wage(i.e. $55K) & Labor(PERM) prevailing wage(i.e. $65K) going to create any problem at stage of I-140 or later in I-485??
I am getting paid as mentioned in LCA i.e. $55K.
I will greatly appreciate response.
Thanks.
In my LCA(H1B) Prevailing wage is $ 55K & in my Labor(PERM) application Prevailing wage is $ 65K.
My labor(PERM) has been approved & I-140 is in process at TSC.
My question is
This diffrence between LCA mentioned prevailing wage(i.e. $55K) & Labor(PERM) prevailing wage(i.e. $65K) going to create any problem at stage of I-140 or later in I-485??
I am getting paid as mentioned in LCA i.e. $55K.
I will greatly appreciate response.
Thanks.
2010 that abies give are when
upuaut8
10-31 02:00 AM
or using action script to place dots in a line, also works.
more...
zCool
12-12 12:39 AM
Be very very careful.. There are lots of carcasses along the highway of pre-approved labor..
In any case.. I have almost never seen this work when people enter it solely based on labor based logic, If every thing else is fine like project/attitude/salary and approved labor is add-on.. then you got lucky.. and Good Luck!
But rule of thumb is .. if it's too good to be true.. mostly IT IS..
In any case.. I have almost never seen this work when people enter it solely based on labor based logic, If every thing else is fine like project/attitude/salary and approved labor is add-on.. then you got lucky.. and Good Luck!
But rule of thumb is .. if it's too good to be true.. mostly IT IS..
hair PICTURES : Babies
bhp2301
01-15 05:10 PM
Hi Please help...
My last day at my job will be Feb 2nd.(COmpany A)
I have filed for h1b transfer with company B .But I am asked that i can only join company B after h1b approval(not with reciept).I will be in legal status while in process.(COS)
Now in the meantime if I find a job with company C (while my h1b transfer with company B is in process) ...can i transfer my h1b again while h1b trasnfer with company B is in process and company A has sent revoking notice.
-Thanks
My last day at my job will be Feb 2nd.(COmpany A)
I have filed for h1b transfer with company B .But I am asked that i can only join company B after h1b approval(not with reciept).I will be in legal status while in process.(COS)
Now in the meantime if I find a job with company C (while my h1b transfer with company B is in process) ...can i transfer my h1b again while h1b trasnfer with company B is in process and company A has sent revoking notice.
-Thanks
more...
smartin
04-30 06:02 PM
Hi all,
I had my h1 issued in nov '09 and was laid off from the company in march '10. However, I was able to secure other position in the same company a month later. But now the company wants me to exit/re-enter the country (and get my visa stamped) before starting the new position.
Since I was technically out of status for the month of April (and don't have any paystubs for the same), will it be difficult to get my h1 visa stamped? Also, can I get my stamping done in Canada, or will I have to my home country?
Thanks in advance..
S. M
I had my h1 issued in nov '09 and was laid off from the company in march '10. However, I was able to secure other position in the same company a month later. But now the company wants me to exit/re-enter the country (and get my visa stamped) before starting the new position.
Since I was technically out of status for the month of April (and don't have any paystubs for the same), will it be difficult to get my h1 visa stamped? Also, can I get my stamping done in Canada, or will I have to my home country?
Thanks in advance..
S. M
hot stock photo : Two twin abies,
Blog Feeds
08-03 12:50 PM
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)
more...
house Marzipan-abies-10
imnail
01-15 02:34 AM
I send my I485 application on Nov 6th 2007. No receipts yet. Checks have not cashed as well. Anyone in my position?
tattoo Comfortable Clothes For Babies
Casiel
05-19 06:25 PM
cheers. I really appreciate this.
more...
pictures Fun with Babies Part 1
ivar
07-06 10:01 AM
You mean she got an Audit (RFE) ?
Hello all,
My wife's labor has been stuck for 2 years ( she got an RFE ). Her company lawyers arent too helpful and asked us to just wait. Wanted to know, what steps one can take to try to figure out what is happening.
Thanks,
Adi
Hello all,
My wife's labor has been stuck for 2 years ( she got an RFE ). Her company lawyers arent too helpful and asked us to just wait. Wanted to know, what steps one can take to try to figure out what is happening.
Thanks,
Adi
dresses fat-abies
sankap
02-05 03:26 PM
Mine, too, shows the LUD of 2/3/08, although it was approved in 6/07...
more...
makeup for breech abies!
Steve Mitchell
January 20th, 2005, 09:18 PM
The first samples (that I have seen) of the forthcoming Nikon D2X have been posted on Nikon's site. The samples are small..but here's a glimpse. Click here (http://www.nikonpro.com/d2x_revolution.php). (Click on the thumbnail for a larger image)
girlfriend cute abies wallpapers for
kondur_007
04-20 08:43 PM
My wife is planning on going to India in summer, and she has either misplaced or lost her i94 card. What should i do now?
Was it at I 94 given at the airport or was it something that came attached to approval notice with extension/change of status?
Do you know for sure that it was not expired?
Do you have a copy of it?
When is your wife coming back from India (for how long she is visiting)?
Was it at I 94 given at the airport or was it something that came attached to approval notice with extension/change of status?
Do you know for sure that it was not expired?
Do you have a copy of it?
When is your wife coming back from India (for how long she is visiting)?
hairstyles wallpaper cute abies
Augusta
09-30 04:29 PM
Hi,
Need some help here for my friend.
He is an employee of company A and his first 3 yrs H1 is ended say Sep
25, 2009. But he was already got a new H1 approved 1 month back from
company B and that company had assured him to take him on board from
Sep 26, 2009. So he and his wife had both approved H1/H4 from Company
B. Now last minute the company B backed off from their agreement.
So he went back to his company A and asked for H1 extension on Sept
24, 2009 and for which they filed papers. But they didn't file papers
for his wife's H4. Can she be on company B's approved H4? if not how
many days she has to file for H4 linked to company A.
Thanks
Need some help here for my friend.
He is an employee of company A and his first 3 yrs H1 is ended say Sep
25, 2009. But he was already got a new H1 approved 1 month back from
company B and that company had assured him to take him on board from
Sep 26, 2009. So he and his wife had both approved H1/H4 from Company
B. Now last minute the company B backed off from their agreement.
So he went back to his company A and asked for H1 extension on Sept
24, 2009 and for which they filed papers. But they didn't file papers
for his wife's H4. Can she be on company B's approved H4? if not how
many days she has to file for H4 linked to company A.
Thanks
munnu77
04-04 12:01 PM
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html
may visa dtes r not out yet
may visa dtes r not out yet
fromnaija
06-23 12:49 PM
Yes you should furnish this info. One of the forms asks for details of previous marriages which you should provide. I think you will also need to provide your divorce decree. Providing the information does not impact your application one way or the other.
i am filling my 485 form, i was a divorcee back in india and later came here and got married here.do i have to furnish all the details in the form and give the documents?
what will be the impact of this info?
please help?
i am filling my 485 form, i was a divorcee back in india and later came here and got married here.do i have to furnish all the details in the form and give the documents?
what will be the impact of this info?
please help?
No comments:
Post a Comment