waitingmygc
08-27 10:55 PM
If employer or attorney are not helpful then there are high chances that they are hiding something, may have communicated to you I-140 approved in EB-2 whereas in real EB-3. One of my friend already have experinced same problem, EB-3 instead of EB-2. His company is in Jersey and the name starts with N.
Another reason why employer is hiding (or don't want to share) suspecting that you can leave him.
Be careful and try some way (as suggested above) to know about your I-140. All the best.
Another reason why employer is hiding (or don't want to share) suspecting that you can leave him.
Be careful and try some way (as suggested above) to know about your I-140. All the best.
wallpaper Slam Dunk Yaoi - Baby Blue 1
krishmunn
05-05 07:52 PM
Soltan
I am assuming you never filed your 485 with old company .
In that case, you will now need to start your PERM agains with the new company. After PERM apply a new 140 and during this application you can request for the PD as per your old 140.
But you cannot directly use the old 140 for filing a new 485
I am assuming you never filed your 485 with old company .
In that case, you will now need to start your PERM agains with the new company. After PERM apply a new 140 and during this application you can request for the PD as per your old 140.
But you cannot directly use the old 140 for filing a new 485
HereIComeGC
03-26 01:49 PM
How did you come to this conclusion?
From previous experiences, USCIS will work like crazy and use up all
visa numbers for EB2. Like they did last September - approving 60000 or so appplications.
From previous experiences, USCIS will work like crazy and use up all
visa numbers for EB2. Like they did last September - approving 60000 or so appplications.
2011 Slam Dunk Yaoi - Baby Blue 2
simple1
06-18 06:22 PM
I know that is a problem. We all are aware of EB3@U.
My question was Is there any problem specific to ROW that is not faced by non-ROW ?
I don�t want to carry this (ROW non-ROW) conversation forward.
Letus focus on, What is in CIR for legal immigration ?
Last time I checked EB3 for ROW was "U". Did you somehow get "U" confused with "C" or have you stopped looking at visa bulletins?
Just so you know, EB3-ROW has the exact same issue at the EB3-India; they are both unavailable. Is that not a problem? Don't take my word for it, just look at the recent visa bulletins.
Having said that, if you don't know what all the problems are with different preference categories for ROW or non-ROW then may be you need to spend some time educating yourself before making statements suggesting that ROW does't need any relief or only Indians are suffering through the EB mess.
My question was Is there any problem specific to ROW that is not faced by non-ROW ?
I don�t want to carry this (ROW non-ROW) conversation forward.
Letus focus on, What is in CIR for legal immigration ?
Last time I checked EB3 for ROW was "U". Did you somehow get "U" confused with "C" or have you stopped looking at visa bulletins?
Just so you know, EB3-ROW has the exact same issue at the EB3-India; they are both unavailable. Is that not a problem? Don't take my word for it, just look at the recent visa bulletins.
Having said that, if you don't know what all the problems are with different preference categories for ROW or non-ROW then may be you need to spend some time educating yourself before making statements suggesting that ROW does't need any relief or only Indians are suffering through the EB mess.
more...
chanduv23
11-06 07:46 AM
My Mother in law flew with them, and her experience was good.
How old are your folks? Sometimes, this may sound a bit cheesy, but getting wheelchair always helps. What that does is, it guarantees your folks will be at the correct gates, at right times.
I got her a wheelchair, and she had a smooth transition.....
hope that helps...
Thanks for the response, they are 57 and 53 years and healthy, will it make sense to request for a wheelchair? Maybe we can request for one of them :)
How old are your folks? Sometimes, this may sound a bit cheesy, but getting wheelchair always helps. What that does is, it guarantees your folks will be at the correct gates, at right times.
I got her a wheelchair, and she had a smooth transition.....
hope that helps...
Thanks for the response, they are 57 and 53 years and healthy, will it make sense to request for a wheelchair? Maybe we can request for one of them :)
anu_t
06-17 12:23 PM
There are a lot of IV members whose labor is not approved yet (like me) or did not have their 140 filed as of May 15.
No. I don't think so you will have problem like us. Because you are stil eligible for 1 year extesion as labour is pending. For us we can't even apply for labour. and when we can i.e. on oct 2008 by that time we would have left less than 1 year so it is also not useful for us.
No. I don't think so you will have problem like us. Because you are stil eligible for 1 year extesion as labour is pending. For us we can't even apply for labour. and when we can i.e. on oct 2008 by that time we would have left less than 1 year so it is also not useful for us.
more...
kaisersose
04-28 04:22 PM
Hello,
I have been on H1 for last 3 years and had applied for 485 last july as dependant for my spouse's AOS. My spouse is primary applicant for 485. I have my EAD also. I am worried that I may get RFE if I file for an H1 extension. If I am not able to respond to RFE and my H1 extension gets denied will this affect my I-485 in anyway. I am wondering whether or not to apply for H1 extension and just use my EAD.
This is how I see it.
What you should really consider is to see if there are possible reasons for your spouse's 485 to get rejected.
If you cannot find any, then simply switch to EAD.
I have been on H1 for last 3 years and had applied for 485 last july as dependant for my spouse's AOS. My spouse is primary applicant for 485. I have my EAD also. I am worried that I may get RFE if I file for an H1 extension. If I am not able to respond to RFE and my H1 extension gets denied will this affect my I-485 in anyway. I am wondering whether or not to apply for H1 extension and just use my EAD.
This is how I see it.
What you should really consider is to see if there are possible reasons for your spouse's 485 to get rejected.
If you cannot find any, then simply switch to EAD.
2010 you mean yaoi?? narutoxsasuke
sjhugoose
February 20th, 2004, 07:15 AM
I don't know about the wide angle lenses, but I don't think that would help that much in the dof problem you have.
Use this DOF calculator for your camera:
http://dfleming.ameranet.com/dofjs.html
The Sony at 38mm 12 inches away at f8 give you a near of of 11.8 and a far of 12.1. At 28mm 12 inches away you can get a near of 11.7 and far of 12.3.
If you play a bit with the calculator there, you can get an idea of the dof you can achieve with or without the wide angle lenses.
Olga
Olga,
I don't mean to step on your toes here but I think you've missed something. The sony is a 38mm equivalent. I believe its actually a 9.7mm-48.5mm lens and these numbers should be used for calculating the DOF, unless the calculator says otherwise. In this case you can obtain the DOF that Daniel desires and it may actually be easier with a digicam than with an SLR based camera. AHHH I thinkI just suggested a digicam is better than a SLR.
Scott
Use this DOF calculator for your camera:
http://dfleming.ameranet.com/dofjs.html
The Sony at 38mm 12 inches away at f8 give you a near of of 11.8 and a far of 12.1. At 28mm 12 inches away you can get a near of 11.7 and far of 12.3.
If you play a bit with the calculator there, you can get an idea of the dof you can achieve with or without the wide angle lenses.
Olga
Olga,
I don't mean to step on your toes here but I think you've missed something. The sony is a 38mm equivalent. I believe its actually a 9.7mm-48.5mm lens and these numbers should be used for calculating the DOF, unless the calculator says otherwise. In this case you can obtain the DOF that Daniel desires and it may actually be easier with a digicam than with an SLR based camera. AHHH I thinkI just suggested a digicam is better than a SLR.
Scott
more...
sunofeast_gc
07-22 06:49 PM
just now I gave 5 star and posted my comments
hair Get ready for more gay porn
synergy
12-03 10:10 PM
If I am going to get a new H1B ,do I still need to invoke AC21?
I am also in same boat, I was gathering information on the same and found different solutions.
1)To be on safer side you can transfer H1B and also invoke AC21 to the new employer, if the new employer is willing to support,
2)If H1B is not revoked by the old employer then Yes , you can work on EAD or H1B for the same old employer
3) since I140 is approved for more then 6 months, you are safe, he may not have options to revoke I140.
4)If you have validity of H1B stamping on your passport then no need of using AP as well to go in and out of country, even after using EAD.
please advice on the same, good questions synergy.
I am also in same boat, I was gathering information on the same and found different solutions.
1)To be on safer side you can transfer H1B and also invoke AC21 to the new employer, if the new employer is willing to support,
2)If H1B is not revoked by the old employer then Yes , you can work on EAD or H1B for the same old employer
3) since I140 is approved for more then 6 months, you are safe, he may not have options to revoke I140.
4)If you have validity of H1B stamping on your passport then no need of using AP as well to go in and out of country, even after using EAD.
please advice on the same, good questions synergy.
more...
cris
08-30 09:28 AM
Immigration gurus, need your advice ASAP
my current H1B visa expires 03/07 . If I can fill for extension and while petion is pending with USCIS for processing can I travel outside USA ?
I asked lawyer to apply for extension first week of september . I have I140 approved and he will request 3 years increment .
my job requires traveling outside USA and I'm wonder if I can travel back and forth until petition is approved .
I know that after approval I need to get visa stamp .
Your quick inputs will be highly appreciated
thank you in advance
my current H1B visa expires 03/07 . If I can fill for extension and while petion is pending with USCIS for processing can I travel outside USA ?
I asked lawyer to apply for extension first week of september . I have I140 approved and he will request 3 years increment .
my job requires traveling outside USA and I'm wonder if I can travel back and forth until petition is approved .
I know that after approval I need to get visa stamp .
Your quick inputs will be highly appreciated
thank you in advance
hot anime yugioh yaoi
HRPRO
03-07 11:29 AM
I haven't file 485 and have no EAD.
Just an approved 140 with looming layoffs.
How many years do you have left on your H-1?
Just an approved 140 with looming layoffs.
How many years do you have left on your H-1?
more...
house an AmV with some of the cutest anime yaoi couples that I totally love and
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
tattoo A great anime (imo) with quite
ss2005
07-24 10:17 AM
Hi hydubadi,
I am aslo in same situation ... FNU and Pending 485.
My attorney says... just write a letter after chaning the name in passport. Mine is a name split issue.
My old passport has Last Name = Last Name + First NAme and First NAme = Blank and visa etc it is FNU
I got my H1B visa inside the US and when I went to the consulate, the lady refused to stamp my visa. I had to go to the passport office and get an "observation" that my name should be read as
First Name : "FirstName"
Last Name : "LastName"
I am aslo in same situation ... FNU and Pending 485.
My attorney says... just write a letter after chaning the name in passport. Mine is a name split issue.
My old passport has Last Name = Last Name + First NAme and First NAme = Blank and visa etc it is FNU
I got my H1B visa inside the US and when I went to the consulate, the lady refused to stamp my visa. I had to go to the passport office and get an "observation" that my name should be read as
First Name : "FirstName"
Last Name : "LastName"
more...
pictures Even if he#39;s gay or bisexual.
nirenjoshi
01-17 08:53 AM
I had the same problem.. That you can file for ITIN only when filinf tax return. But the lady at the IRS office told me that if your spouse's name is added to an interest bearing account - say for example your savings bank account. Then IRS is required to assign an ITIN number to your spouse. There is a place to select the reason why you need the ITIN, on the form. You will need a letter from the bank that this person has an interst bearing account with us.. Thats all I sent and got the ITIN number for my wife.
dresses I#39;m away for Yaoi/Yuricon this
chanduv23
02-12 01:36 PM
- lazy folks, are NOT just lazy to contribute $$
- many simply just dont know what mess that are into yet
im sure time will teach lessons to those, but no use - it may be too late. they might think about IV - when they have packed their bags and while at the airport, taring their I-94's one last US departure. yeah going for good is what i mean. see you somewhere in india. may be a good subject to talk when we all retire.
I second this. Most people have no clue what kind of mess they got into. Everyone is used to the comforts of life in the US and want to make it their home by any means, but no one understands that life is not easy.
- many simply just dont know what mess that are into yet
im sure time will teach lessons to those, but no use - it may be too late. they might think about IV - when they have packed their bags and while at the airport, taring their I-94's one last US departure. yeah going for good is what i mean. see you somewhere in india. may be a good subject to talk when we all retire.
I second this. Most people have no clue what kind of mess they got into. Everyone is used to the comforts of life in the US and want to make it their home by any means, but no one understands that life is not easy.
more...
makeup Nazi Yaoi 2
Munna Bhai
01-10 04:09 PM
munabhai
i filed my I-140 in may 07 and got RFE in NOV-07 and replied in dec07.
what that RFE was for?? education or pay??
i filed my I-140 in may 07 and got RFE in NOV-07 and replied in dec07.
what that RFE was for?? education or pay??
girlfriend yaoi, otaku, anime, gay,
Lydia
06-18 11:24 AM
I understand it is law but he is denying... I did offer him money, but he says a big NO.
hairstyles here is some more yaoi pics
gman
07-08 07:36 PM
Did this ever go anywhere?
logiclife
06-01 07:04 PM
First of all, make sure you double check everything I say here with an immigration lawyer. I am not an immigration lawyer and my knowledge is based on forums like these.
Ok.
You still have another 2 months before you begin the last year of your initial 6-year H1 term.
If you new employer is willing to do H1, then FILE H1 as soon as possible. You will get a 3 year H1 term with your new employer based on your current 140 that is approved(with your current employer). The thing is - beyond the 6th year, you can get 3 year extensions of H1 if your 140 is approved(with someone, anyone, it doesnt have to be your employer at that time). Now, if you quit your current employer and go with new one and you end up getting only 1 year H1 with the new employer(in case if you cannot somehow use your current approved 140 to get a 3 year H1), then its still ok. But have your new employer start the new GC's labor right away. That way, you will have 365 days passed when your 6 year term is over in Aug 2007, making you eligible for 7th year of H1. This is very important.
Yes, if your old employer is going to withdraw your labor and 140, then your new employer will have to start GC from scratch. That begins with PERM labor. If you file under EB2, I think you can still transfer your priority date from your old EB3 labor and 140 to new EB2 process. (however, better make sure from a lawyer).
Ok.
You still have another 2 months before you begin the last year of your initial 6-year H1 term.
If you new employer is willing to do H1, then FILE H1 as soon as possible. You will get a 3 year H1 term with your new employer based on your current 140 that is approved(with your current employer). The thing is - beyond the 6th year, you can get 3 year extensions of H1 if your 140 is approved(with someone, anyone, it doesnt have to be your employer at that time). Now, if you quit your current employer and go with new one and you end up getting only 1 year H1 with the new employer(in case if you cannot somehow use your current approved 140 to get a 3 year H1), then its still ok. But have your new employer start the new GC's labor right away. That way, you will have 365 days passed when your 6 year term is over in Aug 2007, making you eligible for 7th year of H1. This is very important.
Yes, if your old employer is going to withdraw your labor and 140, then your new employer will have to start GC from scratch. That begins with PERM labor. If you file under EB2, I think you can still transfer your priority date from your old EB3 labor and 140 to new EB2 process. (however, better make sure from a lawyer).
Dustinthewind
01-05 07:33 AM
@thomachan72 - Thank you! Great idea on the trailer with dialogues! Our goal was to create an engaging, relatively fast paced and high level quick Teaser first to get people's attention and then release a Trailer with dialogues just like you mentioned in a few weeks. So the main full film trailer will come out late January/early February. Stay tuned.