vethalan
03-04 05:38 PM
I think you can do that as long as the other H1B's were not cancelled.
Talk to an Immigration Attorney about this issue.
Talk to an Immigration Attorney about this issue.
wallpaper Torrent Mirror: Law amp; Order
ajaysri
05-13 12:00 AM
Any body has any thoughts?
perm2gc
05-23 05:26 PM
Hi All,
I am finishing my PHD and wanted to know if anyone knows about the process of applying for an H-1b and/or GC for this particular category of health professionals.
Would greatly appreciate any help or advice.
Please read the first title in the home page.you have your answer in it.:D
I am finishing my PHD and wanted to know if anyone knows about the process of applying for an H-1b and/or GC for this particular category of health professionals.
Would greatly appreciate any help or advice.
Please read the first title in the home page.you have your answer in it.:D
2011 Law and Order CI S08E09
Canadianamerican
09-28 11:50 AM
Hello,
I am a canadian of Indian Origin.I was granted US Immigrant visa under the EB3 category at the Montreal US consulate in 2004.At that time I could not take my family for the interview and we chose to take their Visa later.after 5 years now we have decided to move to US (I am on commuters GC now) and has been trying for an appointment for my family at the consulate in Montreal.The consulate has informed me couple months back that there is no visa number available and my priority date is also not current (our priority date is Mar 2002).Is there any way out of this as I read now that the priority date is stuck in 2001 for a few years now and there is no real chance of moving ahead any time soon.I realise now that maybe we should all have taken the visa at that time instead of just me.Now I am stuck , is there no special case for my type of case as I had already been granted Visa earlier or since My case was already approved in 2004? I will appreciate any help or advise.
Thank You
CanadianAmerican.
I am a canadian of Indian Origin.I was granted US Immigrant visa under the EB3 category at the Montreal US consulate in 2004.At that time I could not take my family for the interview and we chose to take their Visa later.after 5 years now we have decided to move to US (I am on commuters GC now) and has been trying for an appointment for my family at the consulate in Montreal.The consulate has informed me couple months back that there is no visa number available and my priority date is also not current (our priority date is Mar 2002).Is there any way out of this as I read now that the priority date is stuck in 2001 for a few years now and there is no real chance of moving ahead any time soon.I realise now that maybe we should all have taken the visa at that time instead of just me.Now I am stuck , is there no special case for my type of case as I had already been granted Visa earlier or since My case was already approved in 2004? I will appreciate any help or advise.
Thank You
CanadianAmerican.
more...
k94
09-21 06:55 PM
I have also always handed in both
msp1976
02-18 07:06 PM
May be we can add a primer on how to evaluate a bill when it comes out of the senate or house in next few months...
We can define places to look in the text for specific goals listed on the front page...Section wise....
We can define places to look in the text for specific goals listed on the front page...Section wise....
more...
vjzzz
10-06 05:59 PM
I had a really good experience in Nogales last week, I got my visa stamping on the same day of my appointment and the NVS International team was great. They arranged everything for me:transportation from the Tucson Airport to Nogales, they arranged my hotel stay, bank draft as well as transportation from the hotel to the consulate. It was a real stress reliever to know that I had somebody there to help me and advise me on what to do. I would definitely recommend them to anyone. www.nogalesvisaservices.com
Important, remember to take your client letters if you are doing any consulting for a particular client and take all your tax return information. Take every piece of information that specifies where you work and what your job duties are.
Good luck to everybody!
VJ
Important, remember to take your client letters if you are doing any consulting for a particular client and take all your tax return information. Take every piece of information that specifies where you work and what your job duties are.
Good luck to everybody!
VJ
2010 Law amp; Order CI “Traffic” was
malibuguy007
09-11 02:57 PM
Also I have read conflicting responses e.g. some users have suggested not working and other have said you can work 180 days after EAD expires.
more...
Administrator2
10-16 07:35 PM
,
hair previous Law amp; Order games
vijay1974
03-10 08:48 AM
Hi!
I work in webster,ny office. I can help you with information you need.
Vijay
I work in webster,ny office. I can help you with information you need.
Vijay
more...
NeedMiracles
06-17 12:55 PM
Please give me an argument why we should not include this...
(I am just trying to play a devil's advocate)
(I am just trying to play a devil's advocate)
hot ORDER: CRIMINAL INTENT,
lazycis
02-05 09:39 AM
14. I-485 pending
15. If you entered last time into the US using H4, answer H4. If you used AP, answer Advance Parole.
15. If you entered last time into the US using H4, answer H4. If you used AP, answer Advance Parole.
more...
house and ORDER CRIMINAL INTENT
coolest_me
03-04 04:19 PM
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_11/b4123000829099.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_top+story
tattoo Order: Criminal Intent and
milestogo
03-31 01:31 AM
can any one please suggest....the complications of working on part time on EAD with the same employer (I485 applied but waiting for approval, I140 approved 1 year back)???
more...
pictures Order: Criminal Intent and
jackal.abcd
11-01 01:16 PM
I am on H1B expiring in Nov 2010.I am planning to leave the country for good and i am planning to still continue trading stocks online from my home country and pay Taxes for the profit/losses every year.. Is it okay to do it this way.. or any problems...
dresses Order: Criminal Intent
STAmisha
06-30 12:59 PM
Bumping
more...
makeup Law amp; Order: Criminal Intent
nozerd
10-14 12:27 AM
I am an EB3 INDIA PD:August 2001 expecting long wait for greencard.
I am Canadian PR and have been offered job by my current company's Toronto office. Company will continue US GC process but till I get GC I will be in Canada on Canadian payroll so legally cant visit US on H1B visa.
My spouse is doing a professional degree in US which will last another 2 ys. She has expired H4 visa stamp on passport. She will be applying for H4 --->F1 conversion.
My question is can she return back to USA after visiting me in Canada using AVR ? She would be on F1 but with expired H1 on passport ? She will not apply for new visa in Canada and leave within 30 days.
Thanks
I am Canadian PR and have been offered job by my current company's Toronto office. Company will continue US GC process but till I get GC I will be in Canada on Canadian payroll so legally cant visit US on H1B visa.
My spouse is doing a professional degree in US which will last another 2 ys. She has expired H4 visa stamp on passport. She will be applying for H4 --->F1 conversion.
My question is can she return back to USA after visiting me in Canada using AVR ? She would be on F1 but with expired H1 on passport ? She will not apply for new visa in Canada and leave within 30 days.
Thanks
girlfriend in Law amp; Order: Criminal
Blog Feeds
07-16 04:50 PM
[Y]ou have to be prepared at any moment to face difficulties and even dangers by knowing what to do and how to do it. Agnes and Robert Baden-Powell, How Girls Can Help to Build Up the Empire Be Prepared in [m]ind . . . by having thought out beforehand any . . . situation that might occur, so that you know the right thing to do at the right moment, and are willing to do it. Robert Baden-Powell, Scouting for Boys - Campfire Yarn No. 3 - Becoming a Scout Excerpts from the Scout Motto: "Be Prepared." When immigration-beat writers...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/07/my-entry.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/07/my-entry.html)
hairstyles on “Law amp; Order: Criminal
Blog Feeds
04-05 09:40 AM
Our friendly anti Jack has provided in the comments a couple of links to an intriguing story regarding Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele (currently embroiled in another scandal - this time involving strippers and GOP money - oy!). Steele has been one of the moderate voices in the GOP when it comes to immigration reform in the past and apparently he met with a pro-reform group called the Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM). Accounts differ regarding whether Steele promised to work for immigration reform and, more specifically, help round up a second GOP Senator to sponsor the reform bill...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/gop-head-sort-of-promises-to-support-cir.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/gop-head-sort-of-promises-to-support-cir.html)
CaveMan232
12-16 02:00 AM
I have a valid Visitor(B1/B2) visa stamp in my passport. I previously entered the country on H1B visa stamp which has already expired. Can I come back to US based on the valid Visitor(B1/B2) visa stamp?
Macaca
08-05 07:42 AM
A Polarized, and Polarizing, Congress (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301949.html) By David S. Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com), August 5, 2007
The distinguishing characteristic of this Congress was on vivid display the other day when the House debated a bill to expand the federal program that provides health insurance for children of the working poor.
Even when it is performing a useful service, this Congress manages to look ugly and mean-spirited. So much blood has been spilled, so much bile stockpiled on Capitol Hill, that no good deed goes untarnished.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a 10-year-old proven success. Originally a product of bipartisan consensus, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, it was one of the last domestic achievements before Monica and impeachment fever seized control.
It is up for renewal this year and suddenly has become a bone of contention. President Bush underfunded it in his budget; the $4.8 billion extra he proposed spending in the next five years would not finance insurance even for all those who are currently being served.
But when the Senate Finance Committee proposed boosting the funding to $35 billion -- financed by a hefty hike in tobacco taxes -- Bush threatened a veto, and he raised the rhetorical stakes by claiming that the measure was a step toward "government health insurance."
That was surprising news to Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, two staunch conservatives who had joined in sponsoring the Senate bill, which the Senate Finance Committee supported 17 to 4.
But rather than meet the president's unwise challenge with a strong bipartisan alternative, the House Democratic leadership decided to raise the partisan stakes even higher by bringing out a $50 billion bill that not only would expand SCHIP but would also curtail the private Medicare benefit delivery system that Bush favors.
To add insult to injury, House Democratic leaders then took a leaf from the old Republican playbook and brought the swollen bill to the floor with minimal time for debate and denied Republicans any opportunity to offer amendments.
The result was undisguised fury -- and some really ugly exchanges on the floor. The worst, given voice by former speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, among others, was the charge that the Democrats were opening the program to illegal immigrants. The National Republican Congressional Committee distributed that distortion wholesale across the country in a flurry of news releases playing to the same kind of nativist prejudice that sank the immigration reform bill. In fact, governors of both parties support the certification system included in the bill for assuring that families meet citizenship requirements; the governors know that too many legal residents have been wrongly disqualified because they could not locate their birth certificates.
In the end, the House bill passed on a near-party-line vote, 225 to 204, far short of the margin that would be needed to override the promised Bush veto. That means the program will probably have to be given a temporary renewal before the Sept. 30 deadline, and eventually Democrats and the White House will negotiate an agreement.
So it will go down as one more example of unnecessary conflict. No rational human being could explain why a program that both parties support and both want to continue could ignite such a fight.
But that is Washington in this era of polarized politics. As Congress heads out for its August recess, it has accomplished about as much as is usually the case at this stage. It passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and an overdue but healthy package of ethics reforms. It moved some routine legislation.
But what the public has seen and heard is mainly the ugly sound of partisan warfare. The Senate let a handful of dissident Republicans highjack the immigration bill. Its Democratic leadership marched up the hill and back down on repeated futile efforts to circumscribe American involvement in Iraq, then shamefully pulled back from a final vote when a constructive Republican alternative to the Bush policy was on offer.
The less-than-vital issue of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys has occupied more time and attention than the threat of a terrorist enclave in Pakistan -- or the unchecked growth of long-term debts that could sink Medicare and Social Security.
And when this Congress had an opportunity to take a relatively simple, incremental step to extend health insurance to a vulnerable group, the members managed to make a mess of it.
It's no wonder the approval ratings of Congress are so dismal.
The distinguishing characteristic of this Congress was on vivid display the other day when the House debated a bill to expand the federal program that provides health insurance for children of the working poor.
Even when it is performing a useful service, this Congress manages to look ugly and mean-spirited. So much blood has been spilled, so much bile stockpiled on Capitol Hill, that no good deed goes untarnished.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a 10-year-old proven success. Originally a product of bipartisan consensus, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, it was one of the last domestic achievements before Monica and impeachment fever seized control.
It is up for renewal this year and suddenly has become a bone of contention. President Bush underfunded it in his budget; the $4.8 billion extra he proposed spending in the next five years would not finance insurance even for all those who are currently being served.
But when the Senate Finance Committee proposed boosting the funding to $35 billion -- financed by a hefty hike in tobacco taxes -- Bush threatened a veto, and he raised the rhetorical stakes by claiming that the measure was a step toward "government health insurance."
That was surprising news to Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, two staunch conservatives who had joined in sponsoring the Senate bill, which the Senate Finance Committee supported 17 to 4.
But rather than meet the president's unwise challenge with a strong bipartisan alternative, the House Democratic leadership decided to raise the partisan stakes even higher by bringing out a $50 billion bill that not only would expand SCHIP but would also curtail the private Medicare benefit delivery system that Bush favors.
To add insult to injury, House Democratic leaders then took a leaf from the old Republican playbook and brought the swollen bill to the floor with minimal time for debate and denied Republicans any opportunity to offer amendments.
The result was undisguised fury -- and some really ugly exchanges on the floor. The worst, given voice by former speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, among others, was the charge that the Democrats were opening the program to illegal immigrants. The National Republican Congressional Committee distributed that distortion wholesale across the country in a flurry of news releases playing to the same kind of nativist prejudice that sank the immigration reform bill. In fact, governors of both parties support the certification system included in the bill for assuring that families meet citizenship requirements; the governors know that too many legal residents have been wrongly disqualified because they could not locate their birth certificates.
In the end, the House bill passed on a near-party-line vote, 225 to 204, far short of the margin that would be needed to override the promised Bush veto. That means the program will probably have to be given a temporary renewal before the Sept. 30 deadline, and eventually Democrats and the White House will negotiate an agreement.
So it will go down as one more example of unnecessary conflict. No rational human being could explain why a program that both parties support and both want to continue could ignite such a fight.
But that is Washington in this era of polarized politics. As Congress heads out for its August recess, it has accomplished about as much as is usually the case at this stage. It passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and an overdue but healthy package of ethics reforms. It moved some routine legislation.
But what the public has seen and heard is mainly the ugly sound of partisan warfare. The Senate let a handful of dissident Republicans highjack the immigration bill. Its Democratic leadership marched up the hill and back down on repeated futile efforts to circumscribe American involvement in Iraq, then shamefully pulled back from a final vote when a constructive Republican alternative to the Bush policy was on offer.
The less-than-vital issue of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys has occupied more time and attention than the threat of a terrorist enclave in Pakistan -- or the unchecked growth of long-term debts that could sink Medicare and Social Security.
And when this Congress had an opportunity to take a relatively simple, incremental step to extend health insurance to a vulnerable group, the members managed to make a mess of it.
It's no wonder the approval ratings of Congress are so dismal.
No comments:
Post a Comment