fatjoe
10-30 08:45 AM
I am not sure what is so important in this to answer.
As long as thay had sent the finger prints to you, you should be OK. There is no particular pattern in which they send the EAD cards. So, no body can answer your question about when will you get the EAD. Just pray and watch. If it is more than 90 days since you have applied for your EAD, then you may contact your local office to expedite the process.
As long as thay had sent the finger prints to you, you should be OK. There is no particular pattern in which they send the EAD cards. So, no body can answer your question about when will you get the EAD. Just pray and watch. If it is more than 90 days since you have applied for your EAD, then you may contact your local office to expedite the process.
wallpaper clothing for oys and
EkAurAaya
06-14 10:09 AM
Please Close this thread! Sorry about that...
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.
2011 Top Designer Clothes
brick2006
06-29 10:26 AM
Anyone know of any good GC lawyers in Chicago Land area...
I need a desi lawyer who knows that PD is portable...
please pass on the info..if you know of any!!!
rags99@hotmail.com
Raghu
I need a desi lawyer who knows that PD is portable...
please pass on the info..if you know of any!!!
rags99@hotmail.com
Raghu
more...
ras
06-30 10:50 PM
I am a donar and was able to access donar forum till some time back. But for some reason I dont seem to have access to the donar forum. Are the policies changes or is there a mess-up in the membership credentials
The_Smiths
01-15 11:17 AM
Hello,
I obtained an EAD using my OPT just to be able to work in the U.S. while my fiancee completes her degree (I graduated in December 06 and she will do so in May 07). Since we will get married after she graduates, and will file for adjustment of status, we thought there would be no problem in my ability to work without any interruption.
However, it seems that filing for adjustment of status invalidates your OPT, therefore you wouldn't be able to continue working until you get your new EAD.
Does that mean I would have to stop working for 90 days or so after I get married? (Remember I'm on an F-1 as I think you can keep working if on an H-1B)
If so, is there any way to minimize this problem?
Thanks.
I obtained an EAD using my OPT just to be able to work in the U.S. while my fiancee completes her degree (I graduated in December 06 and she will do so in May 07). Since we will get married after she graduates, and will file for adjustment of status, we thought there would be no problem in my ability to work without any interruption.
However, it seems that filing for adjustment of status invalidates your OPT, therefore you wouldn't be able to continue working until you get your new EAD.
Does that mean I would have to stop working for 90 days or so after I get married? (Remember I'm on an F-1 as I think you can keep working if on an H-1B)
If so, is there any way to minimize this problem?
Thanks.
more...
monu19_75
11-06 06:03 PM
I believe you should just send the H1B approval.
2010 Stitched Designer Dresses in
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...
Blog Feeds
05-25 08:20 AM
Just saw this story from a few days ago. Aside from being a hugely irresponsible way to spend a broke state's taxpayer funds, this idea also is probably unconstitutional. Does Arizona plan on having its own border control points? Will the state's wall interfere with Border Patrol activities? The federal government is supposed to control the national borders and not the states. Not that Arizona minds wasting the state's money to continue to losing that point.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/05/arizona-trying-to-raise-money-to-build-its-own-border-fence-.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/05/arizona-trying-to-raise-money-to-build-its-own-border-fence-.html)
hair Anita G Designer Clothes
omeya
08-17 01:11 PM
Hi,
I applied for my wife's AP online & while entering her SSN there was a typo (wrong digit entered).
What will happnen to the application? will I get RFE? or should I send letter addressing the issue with copy of SSN card along with copy of receipt?
Any help is appriciated.
Thanks.
I applied for my wife's AP online & while entering her SSN there was a typo (wrong digit entered).
What will happnen to the application? will I get RFE? or should I send letter addressing the issue with copy of SSN card along with copy of receipt?
Any help is appriciated.
Thanks.
more...
xyz
07-25 05:52 PM
Guys, applied recently for EAD and its pending and 180 days has not passed. I am planning to open a part time business. Does anyone know if its ok to start a part time business before the EAD gets approved ? Any insights will be appreciated.
Thanks
img
If you draw salary as an employee of the business, it is a problem. Consult an immigration attorney. You cannot take up any work other than what is approved as part of your H1-B.
Thanks
img
If you draw salary as an employee of the business, it is a problem. Consult an immigration attorney. You cannot take up any work other than what is approved as part of your H1-B.
hot these dresses, designer
arnet
06-14 03:32 PM
contact the following people and ask what you need to do to file taxes:
1. contact employer
2. contact your payroll company (like adp, etc) that process your company's payroll
3. contact IRS helpline or customer service (including local or state tax dept)
4. contact experienced tax consultant (CPAs)
I thought employer should have arranged for duplicate one. if not contact above all people and find out what you can do about it.
1. contact employer
2. contact your payroll company (like adp, etc) that process your company's payroll
3. contact IRS helpline or customer service (including local or state tax dept)
4. contact experienced tax consultant (CPAs)
I thought employer should have arranged for duplicate one. if not contact above all people and find out what you can do about it.
more...
house strapless dresses for kids.
sac-r-ten
04-18 03:24 PM
take a infopass and visit your local USCIS office. they might have an answer.
was this applied in premium?
good luck.
was this applied in premium?
good luck.
tattoo little girls clothing and
ajay
11-29 11:15 PM
American funds,troweprice,vanguard all these provide 529 plans for college savings.
These are good for all.
These are good for all.
more...
pictures dresses, designer kids,
rana123
04-14 08:30 AM
Hi,
I am from India.I am on H4(dependent visa),with a stamped expiry date of May 7,2010 on my H4 visa and I-94.I got a J1 offer for further studies in USA.Till I get my required documents for J1 visa,I am guessing it will be beyond this date.My husband has already applied for his visa extension.
1.Now,if I plan to get stamping of J1 in Mexico after the H4 expiry date but with necessary receipts and documents (for H4 related),will I face any problems?
2.Do I need to go to India(my home country) for sure for stamping?
3.Is it better to have status change in USA itself(will delay start of the course)?
Awaiting for feedbacks.
I am from India.I am on H4(dependent visa),with a stamped expiry date of May 7,2010 on my H4 visa and I-94.I got a J1 offer for further studies in USA.Till I get my required documents for J1 visa,I am guessing it will be beyond this date.My husband has already applied for his visa extension.
1.Now,if I plan to get stamping of J1 in Mexico after the H4 expiry date but with necessary receipts and documents (for H4 related),will I face any problems?
2.Do I need to go to India(my home country) for sure for stamping?
3.Is it better to have status change in USA itself(will delay start of the course)?
Awaiting for feedbacks.
dresses Designer Dresses For Girls in
dudgerin
02-24 06:18 PM
Hi,
Did you file for the prevailing wage as per the new rules from Jan 01,2010?
My prevailing wage request was sent through mail and never returned back.
Did you file for the prevailing wage as per the new rules from Jan 01,2010?
My prevailing wage request was sent through mail and never returned back.
more...
makeup Kids Dresses
VivekAhuja
03-03 01:07 PM
Your H1-B visa (just an entry permit) remains active until expiration date.
You can get a visitor visa and visit your brother.
You can get a visitor visa and visit your brother.
girlfriend designer dress for girls
gc_perm2k6
10-16 08:00 PM
We filed two different I485s. One me as Primary, for which I have not received any receipt which reached on July 17th. Another from my husbands employer, me as beneficiary which reached on Aug 13th. We got receipt and FP Notice for one which was applied through my husband's employer. Confusion is that in my receipt notice the Alien Number is different from what I received on my I140 Approval Notice. Is it of any concern? Finally will my husband be able to get EAD from my application?
Appreciate any views or opinions!
Thanks A Lot!
Appreciate any views or opinions!
Thanks A Lot!
hairstyles Knitted Natural Linen Dress
yaseen_ka
02-25 01:29 PM
Hi All,
My wife has her h4 visa stamping in a week's time. I have sent her all the documents required.
My question is, it is mandatory for her to carry my original I-797 petition and I-129?? I have sent photo copies of both the documents, but I read some where that she has to carry originals of these 2 docs. can you pls clarify??
An early response is highly appreciated.
Thanks.
My wife has her h4 visa stamping in a week's time. I have sent her all the documents required.
My question is, it is mandatory for her to carry my original I-797 petition and I-129?? I have sent photo copies of both the documents, but I read some where that she has to carry originals of these 2 docs. can you pls clarify??
An early response is highly appreciated.
Thanks.
junnarkarsamira
10-30 05:22 PM
Gurus please help since my case is somewhat unique
I have future GC filed from Company X, the priority date is February 2006.
I am currently working for Company Y on H1B. This H1B will expire in April 2009. Company Y is also ready to file my GC and I would like to work with Company Y till by future GC is approved, my question is
If I have already filed for 485, EAD and AP through Company X, scenario will it be advisable to file another labour and I-140 through Company Y now?
What could be the implications?
I have future GC filed from Company X, the priority date is February 2006.
I am currently working for Company Y on H1B. This H1B will expire in April 2009. Company Y is also ready to file my GC and I would like to work with Company Y till by future GC is approved, my question is
If I have already filed for 485, EAD and AP through Company X, scenario will it be advisable to file another labour and I-140 through Company Y now?
What could be the implications?
kaps
06-13 10:43 PM
Hi all,
When started working for Company A it used to operated from 2 diffrent locations Newjersy ,New hampshire (Excutive office).
My Company applied Labor from NH in March 2005 (before perm).6 months back my case was moved to New York regional center ( i am not sure why it is moved to NY insted of newark NJ).
Recently they closed (in April 2010) the NH Branch .
What will happen to my green card ..? (labor is applied for NH location)
When i check with my employer he is saying NH location is Executive office it will not have any impact .
if reuqired he is ready open office in NH with new address
What should i Do...? i am totally in confusion state .. and now my dates current from july ,2010.
When started working for Company A it used to operated from 2 diffrent locations Newjersy ,New hampshire (Excutive office).
My Company applied Labor from NH in March 2005 (before perm).6 months back my case was moved to New York regional center ( i am not sure why it is moved to NY insted of newark NJ).
Recently they closed (in April 2010) the NH Branch .
What will happen to my green card ..? (labor is applied for NH location)
When i check with my employer he is saying NH location is Executive office it will not have any impact .
if reuqired he is ready open office in NH with new address
What should i Do...? i am totally in confusion state .. and now my dates current from july ,2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment