pressman
January 5th, 2005, 04:55 AM
Rob - this is superb street journalism - the selective colouring adds to the impact. Nice job.
Pete
Pete
wallpaper long hairstyles for square
deardar
07-13 08:13 AM
and marry a celebraty
21stIcon
09-21 10:51 PM
You will get tax deduction for interest you paid to lender. no matter what deduction you get at end of the year you end of loosing 60-70% of interest which would be more than you pay for rent.
2011 Square Face Haircut
abhijitp
01-18 01:35 AM
> ***If you don't sign, that means no snacks
LOL:-) Thanks for making my day!
NORCAL, see you there on Sunday!
LOL:-) Thanks for making my day!
NORCAL, see you there on Sunday!
more...
tanu_75
04-07 06:52 PM
Agreed. just talk about Bulletin.
Hmm. Another kela. Don't worry MC, your time will come.
Hmm. Another kela. Don't worry MC, your time will come.
mwin
07-23 11:12 PM
Just to clarify...., the advance parole should be valid when you are entering the country, not while leaving right?
Well, I have a current advance parole that expires on October 12, 2008 and I applied for a renewal. Once my AP gets approved (assuming the new AP starts from October 12, 2008) I am planning to leave the country in September (before start of second AP) and re-enter after October 12 using my second AP. Do you guys see any problem in this? Of-course, I will leave only if my second AP is approved in before I leave.
As as dated Oct 12, 2008, on or after this date.
Well, I have a current advance parole that expires on October 12, 2008 and I applied for a renewal. Once my AP gets approved (assuming the new AP starts from October 12, 2008) I am planning to leave the country in September (before start of second AP) and re-enter after October 12 using my second AP. Do you guys see any problem in this? Of-course, I will leave only if my second AP is approved in before I leave.
As as dated Oct 12, 2008, on or after this date.
more...
Legal
09-20 07:22 PM
K_SING,
You can invest, but be careful.
You can invest and earn money, but you shoulddn't be "working" to generate money. If you "work" at stock trading, and generate money this is a violation of your H1B status. You could land in trouble, if I were you I will stop it.
Attorney Siskind addressed this issue recently (visalaw.com), i don't have the web link.
You can do passive investing in mutual funds or stocks. you can invest in real estate funds, but if you actively manage a property and make money you could be in trouble.;)
You can invest, but be careful.
You can invest and earn money, but you shoulddn't be "working" to generate money. If you "work" at stock trading, and generate money this is a violation of your H1B status. You could land in trouble, if I were you I will stop it.
Attorney Siskind addressed this issue recently (visalaw.com), i don't have the web link.
You can do passive investing in mutual funds or stocks. you can invest in real estate funds, but if you actively manage a property and make money you could be in trouble.;)
2010 Any chin length haircut will
don840
04-03 06:06 PM
Have had unfortunate turn of events and need your guidance.
I had a valid approved h1 petition and i-94 for 2005 through company A.
Company filed for extension of h1 in 2007 and received approved h1 and i-94 valid till 2010. Did not travel out of the country at that time.
Filed for AOS 485, EAD, AP in 2007. Traveled and entered US using AP in 2008.
USCIS did inquiry and has revoked 2005 h1 because of incorrect LCA filing by the company. They have also said that because of incorrect LCA filing, I am in violation of h1 status. Attorneys have advised that USCIS will retroactive hold me as 'out-of-status' but not unlawful present as I was working in good faith based on an approved petition and unexpired i-94s.
The 2007 h1 was also filed in similar fashion as the 2005 h1.
Although USCIS has not revoked current 2007-2010 h1, there is a possibility of that happening. The 485 might be denied in that case.
The only option is to get on h4 by applying from consulate in India.
Since I will be now answering yes to question 38 (have you violated terms of US visa, or unlawful present..?) I have also shown as intent to immigrate based on my 485 filing.
I want to know my chances of getting an h4 approved.
I had a valid approved h1 petition and i-94 for 2005 through company A.
Company filed for extension of h1 in 2007 and received approved h1 and i-94 valid till 2010. Did not travel out of the country at that time.
Filed for AOS 485, EAD, AP in 2007. Traveled and entered US using AP in 2008.
USCIS did inquiry and has revoked 2005 h1 because of incorrect LCA filing by the company. They have also said that because of incorrect LCA filing, I am in violation of h1 status. Attorneys have advised that USCIS will retroactive hold me as 'out-of-status' but not unlawful present as I was working in good faith based on an approved petition and unexpired i-94s.
The 2007 h1 was also filed in similar fashion as the 2005 h1.
Although USCIS has not revoked current 2007-2010 h1, there is a possibility of that happening. The 485 might be denied in that case.
The only option is to get on h4 by applying from consulate in India.
Since I will be now answering yes to question 38 (have you violated terms of US visa, or unlawful present..?) I have also shown as intent to immigrate based on my 485 filing.
I want to know my chances of getting an h4 approved.
more...
xbohdpukc
03-27 10:12 PM
I think the main point (and the most expensive one) is how you advertised your position and what requirements you put in printed ads. You can refile PERM and get a decision quite easily if you can find a wiggling room in your ad to squeeze your MBA degree in those reqs.
Good luck to you!
Good luck to you!
hair the right short hairstyle
DUNBAR
09-22 12:48 PM
My labor was filed in 2008, got the Audit in filed month 2009,responded and got cleared in filed month 2010.
more...
waitnwatch
10-02 03:31 PM
When you get a new H1-B approval you get a new I94 too in the mail .You are supposed to staple it to the old I-94 (I think this instruction is contained somewhere within the new I-94). When you leave the US you are supposed to hand over both I-94 cards (no exceptions). When you come back you get a new I-94 at immigration. The I-94 is a entry/exit departure tracking mechanism and if this record does not show up correctly when you are coming back in you may be in for some problems.
hot Gwyneth Paltrow Long Blunt
RiaonH4
01-18 11:30 AM
FALSE STATEMENT - law was changed couple of years ago.
How can they advertise it on Sulekha with an incorrect statement???
Ria
How can they advertise it on Sulekha with an incorrect statement???
Ria
more...
house hairstyle; it must not go long
babu123
06-15 02:00 PM
You can also get a letter from your collegue that worked with that company with all ur job duties mentioned. That serves your purpose I guess.
tattoo HAIRSTYLES FOR SQUARE FACE
WeShallOvercome
07-30 02:17 PM
How does AC21 will come into play when a person files I-485 with the letter from employer that employment will be availabe once green card is issued.
Does person has to join the employer after green card is issued ? As Green card will be availabe only after 180 days of filing.
Gurus, if someone knows such please reply.
Thanks
Saurav
For a future job, you are supposed to work for the sponsoring employer for a few months after you get your GC. Don't have to start right after your approval but as soon as you can... the definition of 'a few months' is also open for interpretations.
Does person has to join the employer after green card is issued ? As Green card will be availabe only after 180 days of filing.
Gurus, if someone knows such please reply.
Thanks
Saurav
For a future job, you are supposed to work for the sponsoring employer for a few months after you get your GC. Don't have to start right after your approval but as soon as you can... the definition of 'a few months' is also open for interpretations.
more...
pictures Sexy Hairstyles Gallerys
murali3000
03-04 12:09 PM
I do a short term stock trading with great profits , if you want I can share my stock picks , PM me.
dresses Square FacesHairstyles
sanju
08-02 11:46 PM
Thanks for the information. VB dates were stuck around April 2001 date because a large number of applications were filed to meet the deadline for
245i.
The dates were �current� until 2005 because of the availability of unused visa numbers that were recaptured by AC-21 bill - passed in 2000-2001. So countries with larger applicant pool got (a lot) more than the otherwise allowed ~3000 green cards in each category. Since 2005, there are no recaptured visa numbers are available, so applicants in a category from any specific country cannot get more than ~ 3000 green cards. Pls. see the distribution of green card numbers in 2006 in his document:
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY06AnnualReportTableV-Part2.pdf
Most people on the forum are busy tracking their 485 receipt, of encashment of bank checks, IO comments etc. Most people will learn that all this is tracking is of no use other than helping everybody to have higher BP. If more green card numbers are not allocated, the wait time for applicants with priority date 2006 could possibly be more than a decade. The past trends were driven by positive events like visa recapture etc. So these trends are not reflective of what to expect in the future. But looking at 2006 numbers, one thing is for sure, the wait times could be a many more that what we would expect.
There is only thing that can prevent wait times of more than 10-15 years - change in the law to increase the number of EB GCs.
245i.
The dates were �current� until 2005 because of the availability of unused visa numbers that were recaptured by AC-21 bill - passed in 2000-2001. So countries with larger applicant pool got (a lot) more than the otherwise allowed ~3000 green cards in each category. Since 2005, there are no recaptured visa numbers are available, so applicants in a category from any specific country cannot get more than ~ 3000 green cards. Pls. see the distribution of green card numbers in 2006 in his document:
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY06AnnualReportTableV-Part2.pdf
Most people on the forum are busy tracking their 485 receipt, of encashment of bank checks, IO comments etc. Most people will learn that all this is tracking is of no use other than helping everybody to have higher BP. If more green card numbers are not allocated, the wait time for applicants with priority date 2006 could possibly be more than a decade. The past trends were driven by positive events like visa recapture etc. So these trends are not reflective of what to expect in the future. But looking at 2006 numbers, one thing is for sure, the wait times could be a many more that what we would expect.
There is only thing that can prevent wait times of more than 10-15 years - change in the law to increase the number of EB GCs.
more...
makeup Haircuts for square face
sankap
07-13 11:28 AM
I'm not sure if Indian citizens are eligible to apply for an investment visa here...
girlfriend hairstyles for oblong face
conundrum
05-25 07:09 AM
Additional Info: The senators offices open only at 8:30am.
hairstyles hot hairstyles for oblong
lazycis
12-11 06:00 AM
wow !! Good... so you too applied after your EAD had expired... and you continued to work on H1. That gives me a good feeling... thanks. Can you share your situation a little more (or I can give my email seperately). I was also wanting to know if you ae aware whether EAD can be applied from outside the US, just in case I had to do that...
That was exactly my situation - working on H1 and having EAD just in case. I was not planning on changing jobs and H1 was just extended for another 3 years so I think I waited almost a year (after EAD expired) before applying for EAD renewal. I do not see why you cannot file it from outside the US if you file by mail. There will be an issue if you e-file as you will have to appear at the ASC to have your picture taken. So file by mail, all you need to send is form I-765, a copy of I-485 receipt, a copy of current (old) EAD, 2 photos and a check for $340 payable to DHS.
That was exactly my situation - working on H1 and having EAD just in case. I was not planning on changing jobs and H1 was just extended for another 3 years so I think I waited almost a year (after EAD expired) before applying for EAD renewal. I do not see why you cannot file it from outside the US if you file by mail. There will be an issue if you e-file as you will have to appear at the ASC to have your picture taken. So file by mail, all you need to send is form I-765, a copy of I-485 receipt, a copy of current (old) EAD, 2 photos and a check for $340 payable to DHS.
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
monkeyman
10-05 12:46 PM
My wife is still waiting for her AP - Could anyone tell me how to determine the progress on AP - she has her EAD Card though!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment