immilaw
09-14 04:28 PM
You have 2 H1s, can you do that. Are you working full time on both H1b visas. Please eloborate on that.
Thanks!
Two H-1B's are possible if you can do two jobs. Most of the ppl file a concurrent H-1B for a part time job so you have one H-1B for full time job and the other for a part time job. The US CIS will approve a concurent H-1B for part time job for as little as 15 hours a week. Now if you want to file the second H-1B too for a full time job and have the physical ability to work for 80 hours a weeks then US CIS won't have any problems with that.
Thanks!
Two H-1B's are possible if you can do two jobs. Most of the ppl file a concurrent H-1B for a part time job so you have one H-1B for full time job and the other for a part time job. The US CIS will approve a concurent H-1B for part time job for as little as 15 hours a week. Now if you want to file the second H-1B too for a full time job and have the physical ability to work for 80 hours a weeks then US CIS won't have any problems with that.
wallpaper i love you baby boy quotes.
lost_in_migration
05-29 04:31 PM
And I thought it could not be worse than what we already got :(
What are they going to do next... Put us in Guantanamo Bay detention camp.... for being immigrants ...and that too legal...and that too high skilled.:mad:
Posting this since almost every thread has the question about the cut-off date after which all LCs or I-140s will be invalidated.
Excerpt from "http://www.ilw.com/articles/2007,0530-endelman.shtm" posted earlier, the cutoff date is May 15, 2007; NOT May 21 2007. (Thanks to "cnag" for finding this link).
Now, the points system waits until October 1, 2008, the first day of the second fiscal year following enactment. From September 10, 2007 until October 1, 2008, over one year, we will have no employment-based green cards! You heard me right friend, no employer sponsorship based on anything after May 15th 2007 and no points system. This is Pat Buchanan's dream come true- an entire fiscal year without any green cards being issued on the basis of employment!
... ...
Thanks,
Jayant
What are they going to do next... Put us in Guantanamo Bay detention camp.... for being immigrants ...and that too legal...and that too high skilled.:mad:
Posting this since almost every thread has the question about the cut-off date after which all LCs or I-140s will be invalidated.
Excerpt from "http://www.ilw.com/articles/2007,0530-endelman.shtm" posted earlier, the cutoff date is May 15, 2007; NOT May 21 2007. (Thanks to "cnag" for finding this link).
Now, the points system waits until October 1, 2008, the first day of the second fiscal year following enactment. From September 10, 2007 until October 1, 2008, over one year, we will have no employment-based green cards! You heard me right friend, no employer sponsorship based on anything after May 15th 2007 and no points system. This is Pat Buchanan's dream come true- an entire fiscal year without any green cards being issued on the basis of employment!
... ...
Thanks,
Jayant
sathweb
01-20 01:11 PM
Sept 21, 2001 still going strong.
Check the details above.
Check the details above.
2011 i love you baby boy quotes. i
walking_dude
11-30 03:26 PM
Where did you get this number 80,000 FB numbers given to EB immigrants? Please show me the source !
Also, you are forgetting about 7% country quota and the demand from ROW (which itself is retrogressed!).
So no matter what you may think, without IV it's going to be a long wait
The other bottleneck is USCIS' inefficiency, not a lack of visa numbers.
If you go thru the statistics of last few years, the annual quota for EB is 140,000 + 80,000 from family other category.IV might want to convince us otherwise, but looking at the numbers, I do not see a shortage of visa numbers.
Also, you are forgetting about 7% country quota and the demand from ROW (which itself is retrogressed!).
So no matter what you may think, without IV it's going to be a long wait
The other bottleneck is USCIS' inefficiency, not a lack of visa numbers.
If you go thru the statistics of last few years, the annual quota for EB is 140,000 + 80,000 from family other category.IV might want to convince us otherwise, but looking at the numbers, I do not see a shortage of visa numbers.
more...
gcgreen
01-09 12:46 PM
the two reasons why you would want to enroll in COBRA are:
1. insuring yourself and family for the one month or so. without insurance, everything is expensive.
2. PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS. If you are without insurance for some time period that time period is deducted from the typical 6 month or so waiting period of coverage of pre-existing conditions. But I think even in this case there is some grace period of 30-60 days. I suspect if you were covered 30-60 days prior to start of coverage by an employer sponsored plan, then the waiting period is waived. but you need to read the fine print for this.
hope this helps.
Hi,
I am joining new job using AC21 provision coming monday. My new employer does not provide medical insurance for the first month. I am eligible for after I complete 1 month.
So my question is: till the time I get medical coverage from new employer (approx. 20 - 30 days), can I invoke COBRA? I heard that one can not invoke COBRA if he or she is employed (only meant for un-employement) is this true?
Also, should I call my current insurance company for COBRA now, or I can wait if I really need to visit a doctor? is there a grace period for this? Because there is a possiblity that I may never would have to visit a doctor for next 20-30 days, but who knows!
Appreciate your answers.
1. insuring yourself and family for the one month or so. without insurance, everything is expensive.
2. PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS. If you are without insurance for some time period that time period is deducted from the typical 6 month or so waiting period of coverage of pre-existing conditions. But I think even in this case there is some grace period of 30-60 days. I suspect if you were covered 30-60 days prior to start of coverage by an employer sponsored plan, then the waiting period is waived. but you need to read the fine print for this.
hope this helps.
Hi,
I am joining new job using AC21 provision coming monday. My new employer does not provide medical insurance for the first month. I am eligible for after I complete 1 month.
So my question is: till the time I get medical coverage from new employer (approx. 20 - 30 days), can I invoke COBRA? I heard that one can not invoke COBRA if he or she is employed (only meant for un-employement) is this true?
Also, should I call my current insurance company for COBRA now, or I can wait if I really need to visit a doctor? is there a grace period for this? Because there is a possiblity that I may never would have to visit a doctor for next 20-30 days, but who knows!
Appreciate your answers.
permfiling
11-02 09:11 PM
Papu,
The law seems to have changes due to AC21, I don't think we can get any actual data of any one who got his GC after AC21 and has already converted to citizenship.
It would be really great if IV can contact USCIS and get an official guideline on this topic.
Thanks.
There are ppl who moved 2 or 3 months after getting GC and have got their USC
AC21 N400 Cases - 2010 (http://forums.immigration.com/showthread.php?309220-AC21-N400-Cases-2010)
The law seems to have changes due to AC21, I don't think we can get any actual data of any one who got his GC after AC21 and has already converted to citizenship.
It would be really great if IV can contact USCIS and get an official guideline on this topic.
Thanks.
There are ppl who moved 2 or 3 months after getting GC and have got their USC
AC21 N400 Cases - 2010 (http://forums.immigration.com/showthread.php?309220-AC21-N400-Cases-2010)
more...
mundada
08-07 05:59 PM
Can you back date your marriage during marriage registration?
2010 i love you baby boy quotes. i
anu_t
08-22 01:58 PM
I am really surprised. Why would it EB3 go back to 2001.
I have just applied for my labour. So I can apply for 485 only after 5/6 years?:mad:
I have just applied for my labour. So I can apply for 485 only after 5/6 years?:mad:
more...
HarshJ
10-02 01:31 PM
No FP notices. Spoke with the lawyer today morning and he mentioned that as the FPs are elgible for 15 months, they issue the FP when they "think" that they shall be able to finish the case in that 15 month time period.
My EADs say FP not available, but I believe that it is not a big concern.
Now that my EB3 PD is Sept 2001, I am hoping to get the FPs sooner rather than later.
As for I-485 Reciept Notice's receipt date, will check with lawyer again and update you folks on that.
My EADs say FP not available, but I believe that it is not a big concern.
Now that my EB3 PD is Sept 2001, I am hoping to get the FPs sooner rather than later.
As for I-485 Reciept Notice's receipt date, will check with lawyer again and update you folks on that.
hair i love you baby boy quotes. i
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
more...
ursosweet
07-19 01:58 PM
my sincere advice to you, being a physician myself.
TB test needs min of 48 hrs to be read and if positive, you HAVE to do a chest x-ray. the immunizations are ok.
get her here on the next flight and get the medical done nxt week.
i had my medical on june 26 and i had to literaaly storm the office of the doctor to get my report done, and i mailed to my attorney......oh i can never forget that day!! it was a race against time. and am glad its over.
good luk
TB test needs min of 48 hrs to be read and if positive, you HAVE to do a chest x-ray. the immunizations are ok.
get her here on the next flight and get the medical done nxt week.
i had my medical on june 26 and i had to literaaly storm the office of the doctor to get my report done, and i mailed to my attorney......oh i can never forget that day!! it was a race against time. and am glad its over.
good luk
hot i love you baby boy quotes.
apb
08-29 12:27 AM
Bumping
more...
house i love you baby boy quotes. i
tinku01
02-19 12:23 PM
Raj,
We should make some efforts to get relief otherwise nothing would happen next year also.
We should make some efforts to get relief otherwise nothing would happen next year also.
tattoo i love you baby boy quotes. i
ngodisha
04-01 10:42 PM
Got done with sending both the faxes. I will also get a couple of my friends to do the same.
more...
pictures i love you baby boy quotes
ronhira
07-21 10:36 PM
hey meatloaf, what's uuuuuppppppppppp!!!!!!!
r u not going to post anything here, i though we were buddies.... me ... ronhira.... u meatloaf..... we all friends.... i not english speak.... u can tall..... teach me somthing.... u proof-e-soor
r u not going to post anything here, i though we were buddies.... me ... ronhira.... u meatloaf..... we all friends.... i not english speak.... u can tall..... teach me somthing.... u proof-e-soor
dresses i love you baby boy quotes. i
amit_p27
06-20 07:36 AM
Today is the next day of my GC freedom, and I am still on this forum, I didnot mean to leave the Forum, I still support IV with all my heart.......
more...
makeup girlfriend i love you baby boy
vivid_bharti
04-22 10:15 AM
Only 10-15 people responded to this thread, you start something useless, people will pound on it, there are more people to criticize & preach here than to do real work...
girlfriend i love you baby boy quotes.
unitednations
03-11 03:43 PM
I remember seeing Wipro, Satyam & Infosys reply to Durbin/Graasley. They were published in economictimes.
"non answer" meant they didn't answer his questions but rather gave some vague reply of how h-1 was good for usa.
If I was on the receivng end of that response; I would have thought that these guys are playing with me and by not answering the quesitons; then they are obviously trying to hide something. Therefore, I will attack them in another way to make them conform to the behaviour I want.
"non answer" meant they didn't answer his questions but rather gave some vague reply of how h-1 was good for usa.
If I was on the receivng end of that response; I would have thought that these guys are playing with me and by not answering the quesitons; then they are obviously trying to hide something. Therefore, I will attack them in another way to make them conform to the behaviour I want.
hairstyles i love you baby boy quotes. i
gc28262
02-21 07:59 AM
Have LCA for the current location also handy.
jefkorn
02-24 07:31 PM
Why do you say so? This has no relation with the current Feb.04, 2008 memo.
The file is an old policy change where USCIS doesn't automatically consider an pending mandamus lawsuit in court as a reason to expedite. They started fighting these cases but have definitely expedited name checks after the policy change( in 02/2007) in response to court orders.
Read this:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ExpediteNameChk022007.pdf
What I can gather from this is that USCIS is going back on its original position of asking the FBI to expedite Name Check cases.
The file is an old policy change where USCIS doesn't automatically consider an pending mandamus lawsuit in court as a reason to expedite. They started fighting these cases but have definitely expedited name checks after the policy change( in 02/2007) in response to court orders.
Read this:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ExpediteNameChk022007.pdf
What I can gather from this is that USCIS is going back on its original position of asking the FBI to expedite Name Check cases.
skp07
10-04 06:50 PM
My wife's EAD renewal was e-filed with a receipt date of june 6 th, almost 120 days, still waiting. Got biometric notice for july 1st and finished it.After 94 days called 1-800 to request expediting the case on sep. 11 th, they sent a RFE asking for I-94 copies and stating biometrics were not transmitted to them and needed information on that, along with enlarged copy of photo ID.
Responded to RFE with a receipt date of sep. 25 th and no updates till day.
Called on 9/3 asnd raised a 2nd SR for expediting. AS her EAD expired on oct.1st and was given 1 week to produce new EAD by oct 10 th by her employer.
WE were hoping for some miracle by monday:confused:
Responded to RFE with a receipt date of sep. 25 th and no updates till day.
Called on 9/3 asnd raised a 2nd SR for expediting. AS her EAD expired on oct.1st and was given 1 week to produce new EAD by oct 10 th by her employer.
WE were hoping for some miracle by monday:confused:
