desigc
04-30 04:14 PM
Gurus..I need some help
My I-140 is approved. I recently got 3 year extension and I am in my 7th year currently.
I may get a better offer. My question is
1. Since I have a new H1b which is valid for 3 years (for H1b year 7,8 and 9), can I transfer it to a new employer?
2. Also, the new employer is willing to file GC, can I use my old PD date. (the new job profile is similar)
3. If the current employer withdraws my I-140, will that affect my H1 transfer?
Please help.
- desigc
My I-140 is approved. I recently got 3 year extension and I am in my 7th year currently.
I may get a better offer. My question is
1. Since I have a new H1b which is valid for 3 years (for H1b year 7,8 and 9), can I transfer it to a new employer?
2. Also, the new employer is willing to file GC, can I use my old PD date. (the new job profile is similar)
3. If the current employer withdraws my I-140, will that affect my H1 transfer?
Please help.
- desigc
wallpaper Bobby Brown/Whitney Houston
GSB
09-13 12:10 PM
Please see this letter sent by governors of 13 states to the Senate and Congress on 09-11-07.
http://shusterman.com/pdf/h1b-governors.pdf
http://shusterman.com/pdf/h1b-governors.pdf
test005
05-12 11:43 PM
Please suggest.
2011 Houdini Live 2005: A Live
okuzmin
11-15 07:06 PM
IV admins, Alaska's state code is AK, not AL. :)
I'm in Anchorage, AK. Skiing, fishing, boating, hiking, etc. -- you name it, let's do it. :)
I'm in Anchorage, AK. Skiing, fishing, boating, hiking, etc. -- you name it, let's do it. :)
more...
askreddy
06-25 10:19 PM
Thank You for the info.
muralip
07-11 12:52 PM
any quick response is appreciated.
more...
bushman06
09-29 12:42 PM
With all the data from USCIS, FOIA and other tracker - random sampling its really hard to say. They all say different things. I think the only thing that is somewhat clear is that EB ROW is not going to use much of the visas this year and we expect some reduction in the backlog. There many estimates by people on this forum.
2010 Amos Lee - Amos Lee 2005/Last
Blog Feeds
02-15 01:00 PM
Remember, the worse the grade, the more we love 'em. And where's Jeb Bush? He'd definitely get a D-. Thanks NUSA for making it easy for the pro-immigration folks as well.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/02/numbers-usa-grades-2012-presidential-hopefuls.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/02/numbers-usa-grades-2012-presidential-hopefuls.html)
more...
unbreakable
03-15 02:44 PM
You entered this country in 1985 and still without a GreenCard? You got to be kidding.
hair Dirty Love
anilsal
11-25 11:06 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15436
more...
dreamgc_real
12-06 01:57 PM
Definitely, we have to meet with all the senators.
I was hoping on getting some of the new senators to side with us assuming they have independent views and maybe we can get their support more easily.......
I was hoping on getting some of the new senators to side with us assuming they have independent views and maybe we can get their support more easily.......
hot Black Love Power Couples
sunny1000
11-22 01:15 AM
I need to apply for an extension for 3 more years, i get my first H1B from 10-04-2008 to 08-31 but i'm not sure about the process to extend my H1B, i dont now if i need re-enter in the visa lottery like the first time.
Extensions don't count against yearly cap numbers. So, you can apply for the extension 6 months before your current petition expiry (feb 2011).
Good luck!
Extensions don't count against yearly cap numbers. So, you can apply for the extension 6 months before your current petition expiry (feb 2011).
Good luck!
more...
house Chevy Equinox 2005
REQUIRE_GC
06-22 01:45 AM
I have just received an email from CRIS that my I 140 has been approved.Good luck to everybody.
Country: India
EB2
PD: Dec 2005
1st I 140 approval date: June 2006
Concurrent filing I 140 and I 485 applied on 6th August 2007
2nd I 140 approval date: 30th April 2008
Congrrtulations, Nagireddi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Country: India
EB2
PD: Dec 2005
1st I 140 approval date: June 2006
Concurrent filing I 140 and I 485 applied on 6th August 2007
2nd I 140 approval date: 30th April 2008
Congrrtulations, Nagireddi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
tattoo Black Love Power Couples
cookeroo
07-19 03:12 PM
so lets call it like that WHITE CHOCOLATE;]
http://ikaizen.pl/TDC2010.jpg
http://ikaizen.pl/TDC2010.jpg
more...
pictures I fell in love with Kate the
ash27
07-17 07:47 PM
When I was on F1, I was able to get my EAD by going to USCIS office. Not sure if we can do the same thing after filing I-485
dresses things I love - perhaps
solaris27
04-28 09:59 AM
Hi
My friend was on H1B visa from last 5.5 years and Laid off last week .
I want to know what options she has to stay in USA.
from last company her labor and 140 was approved .
Can she do visa transfer and start new labor ?
Its only 5-6 months left in her 6 year h1b visa .
Attorneys please reply .
My friend was on H1B visa from last 5.5 years and Laid off last week .
I want to know what options she has to stay in USA.
from last company her labor and 140 was approved .
Can she do visa transfer and start new labor ?
Its only 5-6 months left in her 6 year h1b visa .
Attorneys please reply .
more...
makeup 11 April 2005
realizeit
08-12 02:08 PM
H-1B Willful Violator List of Employers
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/immigration/H1BWillfulViolator.htm
H-1B Debarred/Disqualified List of Employers
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/immigration/H1BDebarment.htm
H-1B Program Related General Link Available at DOL site:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/immigration/h1b.htm
Department of Labor - Employment and Training Administration - Office of Foreign Labor Certification - Program Debarments
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/Debartment_List_Revisions.pdf
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/immigration/H1BWillfulViolator.htm
H-1B Debarred/Disqualified List of Employers
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/immigration/H1BDebarment.htm
H-1B Program Related General Link Available at DOL site:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/immigration/h1b.htm
Department of Labor - Employment and Training Administration - Office of Foreign Labor Certification - Program Debarments
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/Debartment_List_Revisions.pdf
girlfriend Since his 2005 debut,
Macaca
07-29 06:14 PM
Partisans Gone Wild (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701691.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter (neverett@princeton.edu) Washington Post, July 29, 2007
Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
A funny thing is happening in American politics: The fiercest battle is no longer between the left and the right but between partisanship and bipartisanship. The Bush administration, which has been notorious for playing to its hard-right base, has started reaching across the aisle, with its admirable immigration bill (even though it failed), with its new push for a diplomatic strategy toward North Korea and Iran, and above all with its choice of three seasoned moderates for important positions: Robert M. Gates as defense secretary, John D. Negroponte as deputy secretary of state and Robert B. Zoellick as World Bank president.
On the Democratic side, the opening last month of a new foreign policy think tank, the Center for a New American Security, struck a number of bipartisan notes. The Princeton Project on National Security, which I co-directed with fellow Princeton professor John Ikenberry, drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas, some of which have been endorsed by such presidential candidates as John McCain, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat. Barack Obama is running on a return to a far more bipartisan approach to policy and a far less partisan approach to politics. (Full disclosure: I have contributed to Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns.)
In short, some sanity may actually be returning to American politics. Perhaps the most interesting development is the belated realization by the Bush administration that its insistence on an ABC ("anything but Clinton") policy has proved deeply damaging.
But the predominant political reaction to this modest outbreak of common sense has been virulent opposition, from both right and left. The true believers in the Bush revolution are furious. John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded the alarm in February with a broadside against the agreement that the State Department and its Asian negotiating partners had reached with North Korea, warning President Bush that it contradicted "fundamental premises" of his foreign policy. Next came yet another intra-administration battle over Iran policy, with David Wurmser, a top vice presidential aide, telling a conservative audience in May that Vice President Cheney believed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strategy of at least talking with Iranian officials about Iraq was failing.
From the left, many progressives have responded to the foreign policy failures of the Bush administration by trying to purge their fellow liberals. Tufts professor Tony Smith published a blistering essay on Iraq in The Washington Post several months ago, attacking not neoconservative policymakers but liberal thinkers who had, he argued, become enablers for the neocons and thus were the real villains. More recently, the author Michael Lind wrote in the Nation that the "greatest threat to liberal internationalism comes not from without -- from neoconservatives, realists and isolationists who reject the liberal internationalist tradition as a whole -- but from within." He singled out Ikenberry, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, James Lindsay of the University of Texas at Austin and me. These "heretics," he said, "are as dangerous as the infidels." Heretics? Infidels? Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.
In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: "Hillary isn't actually a woman, she's a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine." Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal's Pentecost conference, in which he urged Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: "If . . . you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing." Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where "mainstream media" bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves.
Students of American politics argue that partisan attacks have their own cycles. George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of placing results over party. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the political advantages of take-no-prisoners, call-every-critic-a-traitor patriotism proved irresistible. And the political and media attack industry that has grown up as a result has too much at stake to give in to the calmer, blander beat of bipartisanship.
It's time, then, for a bipartisan backlash. Politicians who think we need bargaining to fix the crises we face should appear side by side with a friend from the other party -- the consistent policy of the admirably bipartisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Candidates who accept that the winner of the 2008 election is going to need a lot of friends across the aisle -- not least to get out of Iraq -- should make a point of finding something to praise in the other party's platform. And as for the rest of us, the consumers of a steady diet of political vitriol, every time we read a partisan attack, we should shoot -- or at least spam -- the messenger.
Partisans Gone Wild, Part II: Web Rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301083.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter, August 3, 2007
Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
A funny thing is happening in American politics: The fiercest battle is no longer between the left and the right but between partisanship and bipartisanship. The Bush administration, which has been notorious for playing to its hard-right base, has started reaching across the aisle, with its admirable immigration bill (even though it failed), with its new push for a diplomatic strategy toward North Korea and Iran, and above all with its choice of three seasoned moderates for important positions: Robert M. Gates as defense secretary, John D. Negroponte as deputy secretary of state and Robert B. Zoellick as World Bank president.
On the Democratic side, the opening last month of a new foreign policy think tank, the Center for a New American Security, struck a number of bipartisan notes. The Princeton Project on National Security, which I co-directed with fellow Princeton professor John Ikenberry, drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas, some of which have been endorsed by such presidential candidates as John McCain, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat. Barack Obama is running on a return to a far more bipartisan approach to policy and a far less partisan approach to politics. (Full disclosure: I have contributed to Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns.)
In short, some sanity may actually be returning to American politics. Perhaps the most interesting development is the belated realization by the Bush administration that its insistence on an ABC ("anything but Clinton") policy has proved deeply damaging.
But the predominant political reaction to this modest outbreak of common sense has been virulent opposition, from both right and left. The true believers in the Bush revolution are furious. John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded the alarm in February with a broadside against the agreement that the State Department and its Asian negotiating partners had reached with North Korea, warning President Bush that it contradicted "fundamental premises" of his foreign policy. Next came yet another intra-administration battle over Iran policy, with David Wurmser, a top vice presidential aide, telling a conservative audience in May that Vice President Cheney believed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strategy of at least talking with Iranian officials about Iraq was failing.
From the left, many progressives have responded to the foreign policy failures of the Bush administration by trying to purge their fellow liberals. Tufts professor Tony Smith published a blistering essay on Iraq in The Washington Post several months ago, attacking not neoconservative policymakers but liberal thinkers who had, he argued, become enablers for the neocons and thus were the real villains. More recently, the author Michael Lind wrote in the Nation that the "greatest threat to liberal internationalism comes not from without -- from neoconservatives, realists and isolationists who reject the liberal internationalist tradition as a whole -- but from within." He singled out Ikenberry, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, James Lindsay of the University of Texas at Austin and me. These "heretics," he said, "are as dangerous as the infidels." Heretics? Infidels? Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.
In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: "Hillary isn't actually a woman, she's a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine." Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal's Pentecost conference, in which he urged Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: "If . . . you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing." Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where "mainstream media" bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves.
Students of American politics argue that partisan attacks have their own cycles. George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of placing results over party. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the political advantages of take-no-prisoners, call-every-critic-a-traitor patriotism proved irresistible. And the political and media attack industry that has grown up as a result has too much at stake to give in to the calmer, blander beat of bipartisanship.
It's time, then, for a bipartisan backlash. Politicians who think we need bargaining to fix the crises we face should appear side by side with a friend from the other party -- the consistent policy of the admirably bipartisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Candidates who accept that the winner of the 2008 election is going to need a lot of friends across the aisle -- not least to get out of Iraq -- should make a point of finding something to praise in the other party's platform. And as for the rest of us, the consumers of a steady diet of political vitriol, every time we read a partisan attack, we should shoot -- or at least spam -- the messenger.
Partisans Gone Wild, Part II: Web Rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301083.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter, August 3, 2007
hairstyles I love to ride the Vitesse
santa123
06-10 09:26 PM
I was just wondering why legal immigration is not generating any interest with the beloved politicians in this country. Inside the mind of these politicians... I guess their agenda is very clear.
Immigration support for illegals = hispanic votes = reelection!
Immigration support for widows = sympathy votes = reelection!
Immigration support for same sex partners = more votes = reelection!
Immigration support for serving the military = Show of patriotism = society respect!
...
...
But,
Immigration support for legal immigrants = what's the use = not a penny worth!!!
Oh God help us!
Immigration support for illegals = hispanic votes = reelection!
Immigration support for widows = sympathy votes = reelection!
Immigration support for same sex partners = more votes = reelection!
Immigration support for serving the military = Show of patriotism = society respect!
...
...
But,
Immigration support for legal immigrants = what's the use = not a penny worth!!!
Oh God help us!
bhasky25
01-15 05:16 PM
Thanks. The A#, DOB and photo are correct on the card. Can I use the EAD card and at the same time file for a correction.
Do I have to pay again for the correction ?
Do I have to pay again for the correction ?
vxg
10-12 02:58 PM
Why is this thread not showing in most recent threads on main page? something wrong with the website?
No comments:
Post a Comment