praveen2008
04-26 10:28 AM
Hello,
I am currently working for employer A on a 6th year H1 with approved 140 petition. MY current H1 is expiring June 2010. In the meantime I got an good offer from employer B who applied for H1 transfer using my approved 140 petition and I got an RFE. My question is god forbid , that if my H1 transfer petition is denied with employer B , can I continue working for Current employer A and if he can file for my H1 extension, come June? Also would there be any recursions, considering i already applied the H1 transfer now with the new employer ?
Please advice and i thank you in advance
I am currently working for employer A on a 6th year H1 with approved 140 petition. MY current H1 is expiring June 2010. In the meantime I got an good offer from employer B who applied for H1 transfer using my approved 140 petition and I got an RFE. My question is god forbid , that if my H1 transfer petition is denied with employer B , can I continue working for Current employer A and if he can file for my H1 extension, come June? Also would there be any recursions, considering i already applied the H1 transfer now with the new employer ?
Please advice and i thank you in advance
wallpaper long-layered-hairstyles
Macaca
11-14 09:30 PM
Congress Needs Both Comity and Accomplishments (http://aei.org/publications/pubID.27104,filter.all/pub_detail.asp) By Norman J. Ornstein | Roll Call, November 14, 2007
A look at the range of public opinion surveys on Congress in recent days, weeks and months can't leave anybody happy. The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos survey showed a 25 percent approval rating, coupled with a staggering 70 percent disapproval--a 45 percent gap in the wrong direction. The most recent NBC-Wall Street Journal survey showed 19 percent approval and 68 percent disapproval, for a 49 percent gap.
Democrats are taking comfort from the fact that much of the anger and disappointment people feel is aimed at Republicans. It should be scant comfort. To be sure, a recent ABC-Washington Post poll showed Republicans at 32 percent approval and 63 percent disapproval. But Democrats are not exactly exempt from public disgust; the same survey showed only 36 percent approval for them, with 58 percent disapproval. If Democrats think they can count on the unhappiness with President Bush and the residue of repugnance with the performance in Washington when the Republicans controlled all the levers of power, they are delusional. There is clearly a broader public anger about the performance of most institutions, but especially those in Washington, and it could very, very easily turn into a broader and deeper reaction against the status quo and all incumbents.
Dig a bit deeper, and it is obvious that voters are tired of the partisan bickering and ideologically driven rancor--they want problems solved in Washington, not yelling or posturing or revenge killing that only results in gridlock. The latter is what they see coming out of Congress.
Of course, this is not entirely fair. The 110th Congress has some significant accomplishments, including implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, increasing the minimum wage, expanding college aid, implementing "pay-as-you-go" budgeting and working hard to make it a reality, and passing significant lobbying and ethics reform. But many other things have passed the House and foundered in the Senate, or been stopped, like children's health insurance, by a presidential veto. And, of course, Congress has spent countless hours trying futilely to do something to change course in Iraq.
Just as important, the image of Congress is far more that of a dysfunctional body riven with partisanship than a well-oiled, or even marginally oiled machine working hard to help the country and its people with their daily challenges. On this front, the blame is widespread, going both to an irresponsible minority and an insensitive majority.
But the onus is especially heavy on the majority. It is the majority, especially in the House, that has the power to shape debate and either to open up or shut down the process to ideas, amendments and involvement by rank-and-file Members in both parties. It is the majority that has to rise above the cheap shots, irresponsible motions to recommit and outrageous rhetoric, both to serve the larger interests of the House and to serve their own partisan interests in maintaining a majority.
The attitude of some Democrats, including some in the leadership, is eerily reminiscent of the Republican leaders in 2005 and 2006--voters don't really care about the internal dynamics of Congress, and even if they are unhappy, our fundraising advantages and strong candidate recruitment will keep us in charge. That is a formula for repeat disaster. Even if Democrats can continue to maintain a thin edge over Republicans in the approval/disapproval ratio, keep up their funding advantage and gain leverage from the retirements of many Republican moderates in contestable districts, their ability to hold a majority beyond 2008 will be severely limited.
The first thing Democrats should do is develop a basic sensitivity and avoid doing stupid things that gain nothing except additional enmity from their counterparts. A good example was the utterly foolish decision to schedule a revote on SCHIP when many Republicans from California were back home tending to their constituents in the midst of the disastrous fires. There was no good reason for pushing that vote instead of delaying it until Members could be back to participate. It reminded me again of the high-handed and insensitive behavior of Republicans in the 109th Congress, when they would quash debate or screw the Democrats for no good reason other than that they had the power to do so.
The second thing Democrats should do is to accept the possibility of defeat on the floor as something short of a disaster. The biggest failing of the GOP in the 109th was an unwillingness to lose no matter what. Of course, you don't want to lose, and can't afford to lose on some basic important issues and priorities. But in other cases, amendments can be constructive or no great disaster (and in some cases, amendments the majority doesn't like can be allowed to pass and jettisoned in conference).
The third thing Democrats should do is to move aggressively to more debate, and not only between Democrats and Republicans. Now is a perfect time to revive the idea of regular prime-time debates on important issues. Take one evening a week, in special orders, and structure a lively debate on something of concern to the country. Have two or four Members lead the way in debate, and follow with a free-for-all discussion. In some cases, say global warming or trade, have both majority and minority Members on each side. Add to that a regular process of having real debate on bills that reach the floor whenever possible.
Now a fourth suggestion: It is possible that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who are legislators, would react to a new Democratic attitude and approach with their own constructive responses. But it also is possible that they, egged on by their own bomb-throwers, would just try to take advantage of any new opening for greater partisan leverage. So Democratic leaders should also open up serious lines of communication with the retiring Republicans such as Reps. David Hobson (Ohio), Ray LaHood (Ill.) and Deborah Pryce (Ohio). Make a deal: We will bend over backward to accept your amendments and the nonfrivolous or nongotcha ones by your colleagues, and to be more fair and open, if you offer such amendments and encourage others, and if you object to irresponsible motions to recommit. The retirees have one last opportunity to make a difference in the way the House operates and in helping to solve the nation's problems. It is a long shot, but it just might work.
A look at the range of public opinion surveys on Congress in recent days, weeks and months can't leave anybody happy. The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos survey showed a 25 percent approval rating, coupled with a staggering 70 percent disapproval--a 45 percent gap in the wrong direction. The most recent NBC-Wall Street Journal survey showed 19 percent approval and 68 percent disapproval, for a 49 percent gap.
Democrats are taking comfort from the fact that much of the anger and disappointment people feel is aimed at Republicans. It should be scant comfort. To be sure, a recent ABC-Washington Post poll showed Republicans at 32 percent approval and 63 percent disapproval. But Democrats are not exactly exempt from public disgust; the same survey showed only 36 percent approval for them, with 58 percent disapproval. If Democrats think they can count on the unhappiness with President Bush and the residue of repugnance with the performance in Washington when the Republicans controlled all the levers of power, they are delusional. There is clearly a broader public anger about the performance of most institutions, but especially those in Washington, and it could very, very easily turn into a broader and deeper reaction against the status quo and all incumbents.
Dig a bit deeper, and it is obvious that voters are tired of the partisan bickering and ideologically driven rancor--they want problems solved in Washington, not yelling or posturing or revenge killing that only results in gridlock. The latter is what they see coming out of Congress.
Of course, this is not entirely fair. The 110th Congress has some significant accomplishments, including implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, increasing the minimum wage, expanding college aid, implementing "pay-as-you-go" budgeting and working hard to make it a reality, and passing significant lobbying and ethics reform. But many other things have passed the House and foundered in the Senate, or been stopped, like children's health insurance, by a presidential veto. And, of course, Congress has spent countless hours trying futilely to do something to change course in Iraq.
Just as important, the image of Congress is far more that of a dysfunctional body riven with partisanship than a well-oiled, or even marginally oiled machine working hard to help the country and its people with their daily challenges. On this front, the blame is widespread, going both to an irresponsible minority and an insensitive majority.
But the onus is especially heavy on the majority. It is the majority, especially in the House, that has the power to shape debate and either to open up or shut down the process to ideas, amendments and involvement by rank-and-file Members in both parties. It is the majority that has to rise above the cheap shots, irresponsible motions to recommit and outrageous rhetoric, both to serve the larger interests of the House and to serve their own partisan interests in maintaining a majority.
The attitude of some Democrats, including some in the leadership, is eerily reminiscent of the Republican leaders in 2005 and 2006--voters don't really care about the internal dynamics of Congress, and even if they are unhappy, our fundraising advantages and strong candidate recruitment will keep us in charge. That is a formula for repeat disaster. Even if Democrats can continue to maintain a thin edge over Republicans in the approval/disapproval ratio, keep up their funding advantage and gain leverage from the retirements of many Republican moderates in contestable districts, their ability to hold a majority beyond 2008 will be severely limited.
The first thing Democrats should do is develop a basic sensitivity and avoid doing stupid things that gain nothing except additional enmity from their counterparts. A good example was the utterly foolish decision to schedule a revote on SCHIP when many Republicans from California were back home tending to their constituents in the midst of the disastrous fires. There was no good reason for pushing that vote instead of delaying it until Members could be back to participate. It reminded me again of the high-handed and insensitive behavior of Republicans in the 109th Congress, when they would quash debate or screw the Democrats for no good reason other than that they had the power to do so.
The second thing Democrats should do is to accept the possibility of defeat on the floor as something short of a disaster. The biggest failing of the GOP in the 109th was an unwillingness to lose no matter what. Of course, you don't want to lose, and can't afford to lose on some basic important issues and priorities. But in other cases, amendments can be constructive or no great disaster (and in some cases, amendments the majority doesn't like can be allowed to pass and jettisoned in conference).
The third thing Democrats should do is to move aggressively to more debate, and not only between Democrats and Republicans. Now is a perfect time to revive the idea of regular prime-time debates on important issues. Take one evening a week, in special orders, and structure a lively debate on something of concern to the country. Have two or four Members lead the way in debate, and follow with a free-for-all discussion. In some cases, say global warming or trade, have both majority and minority Members on each side. Add to that a regular process of having real debate on bills that reach the floor whenever possible.
Now a fourth suggestion: It is possible that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who are legislators, would react to a new Democratic attitude and approach with their own constructive responses. But it also is possible that they, egged on by their own bomb-throwers, would just try to take advantage of any new opening for greater partisan leverage. So Democratic leaders should also open up serious lines of communication with the retiring Republicans such as Reps. David Hobson (Ohio), Ray LaHood (Ill.) and Deborah Pryce (Ohio). Make a deal: We will bend over backward to accept your amendments and the nonfrivolous or nongotcha ones by your colleagues, and to be more fair and open, if you offer such amendments and encourage others, and if you object to irresponsible motions to recommit. The retirees have one last opportunity to make a difference in the way the House operates and in helping to solve the nation's problems. It is a long shot, but it just might work.
Blog Feeds
07-30 03:50 PM
The Boston Globe reports on another case of a potential DREAM Act recipient facing deportation. Alan, the individual who is the subject of the story, is the son of Mexican migrant laborers, came to the US as an infant and his academic success has been an inspiration to children in his neighborhood. Like many others, he did not learn he was illegally present in the US until he was much older - in this case, high school. The Globe notes that Alan is going to leave the US: Now Alan sees Mexico as his only option. His mother is against...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/harvard-grad-faces-deportation.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/harvard-grad-faces-deportation.html)
2011 layered hairstyles. makeup
Blog Feeds
03-31 12:40 PM
On March 19, 2010, the USCIS announced revised filing instructions and addresses for applicants filing an I-131, the Application for Travel Document.
Beginning March 19, 2010 applicants will have to file their applications at the USCIS Vermont Service Center or at one of the USCIS Lockbox facilities.
If you file the I-131 at the wrong location, the USCIS Service Centers will forward it to the USCIS Lockbox facilities for 30 days, until Monday, April 19, 2010. After April 19, 2010, incorrectly filed applications will be returned to the applicant, with a note to send the application to the correct location.
Here is a link to the new filing locations. (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=1d17aca797e63110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fe529c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
More... (http://www.philadelphiaimmigrationlawyerblog.com/2010/03/test_1.html)
Beginning March 19, 2010 applicants will have to file their applications at the USCIS Vermont Service Center or at one of the USCIS Lockbox facilities.
If you file the I-131 at the wrong location, the USCIS Service Centers will forward it to the USCIS Lockbox facilities for 30 days, until Monday, April 19, 2010. After April 19, 2010, incorrectly filed applications will be returned to the applicant, with a note to send the application to the correct location.
Here is a link to the new filing locations. (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=1d17aca797e63110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fe529c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
More... (http://www.philadelphiaimmigrationlawyerblog.com/2010/03/test_1.html)
more...
abcdefg
01-28 03:53 PM
Hello!
I am pursuing part-time MBA while working for a company which has sponsored my GC. I am on EAD based on EB3 filing with PD of March 2005.
I plan to do a summer internship (10-12 weeks) at another company and need to understand the risks. This internship would be 40-hr/week so I will have to either
* quit my job and then search for another full-time job after internship is over, or
* take a Leave of Absence (LoA) for 3 months and come back to my current job
The first option is obviously very risky so I am inclined towards the second option though I don't know if my employer will grant me LoA. Could you please advice me whether doing an internship will be an issue later when my PD becomes current.
Thank you!!
GC Seeker
I am pursuing part-time MBA while working for a company which has sponsored my GC. I am on EAD based on EB3 filing with PD of March 2005.
I plan to do a summer internship (10-12 weeks) at another company and need to understand the risks. This internship would be 40-hr/week so I will have to either
* quit my job and then search for another full-time job after internship is over, or
* take a Leave of Absence (LoA) for 3 months and come back to my current job
The first option is obviously very risky so I am inclined towards the second option though I don't know if my employer will grant me LoA. Could you please advice me whether doing an internship will be an issue later when my PD becomes current.
Thank you!!
GC Seeker
amslonewolf
11-29 10:22 PM
Hi -
I remember seeing a website, that displays all the labor certifications filed by an attorney for a company. Unfortunately, I lost the link to that website.
Can one of you post the link to this website, if you have it,,
I remember seeing a website, that displays all the labor certifications filed by an attorney for a company. Unfortunately, I lost the link to that website.
Can one of you post the link to this website, if you have it,,
more...
thatwillbeit
05-24 08:48 PM
Hi Gurus...
I am one of the July 2007 EAD filers and did not file for AP at that time.
So I am in the process of the renewing EAD & Applying for AP for the first time.
I have couple of questions..
do you get Finger Printing for EAD Renewal ?
do you get Finger Printing / Biometrics for first time applying of AP [Advance Parole]
Your help is much appreciated
I am one of the July 2007 EAD filers and did not file for AP at that time.
So I am in the process of the renewing EAD & Applying for AP for the first time.
I have couple of questions..
do you get Finger Printing for EAD Renewal ?
do you get Finger Printing / Biometrics for first time applying of AP [Advance Parole]
Your help is much appreciated
2010 medium layered hairstyle
dealsnet
08-27 03:05 PM
You can file for your wife and kids while you have a GC.
For brother/sister/parents, you need US citizenship to file it.
If you are a Indian citizen, Bro/sister catagory need a minimum 10 year wait period after filing.
For brother/sister/parents, you need US citizenship to file it.
If you are a Indian citizen, Bro/sister catagory need a minimum 10 year wait period after filing.
more...
digital2k
08-06 12:40 PM
*
hair long layered hairstyle !
webdzinez
03-06 06:29 AM
Both my wife and I are working on H1B visa.
We are landing in Canada for H1B visa renewal.
However, the nvars.com appointment system allows 1 primary applicatnt and then allows to add dependents to that application. Should I add my wife as a dependent or create an independent primary applicant profile for her since she would be requesting an H1 B renewal as well.
If I create an independent primary applicant profile for her, I may not be able to get the same visa date / appointment for both of us.
Please guide.
Thanks
We are landing in Canada for H1B visa renewal.
However, the nvars.com appointment system allows 1 primary applicatnt and then allows to add dependents to that application. Should I add my wife as a dependent or create an independent primary applicant profile for her since she would be requesting an H1 B renewal as well.
If I create an independent primary applicant profile for her, I may not be able to get the same visa date / appointment for both of us.
Please guide.
Thanks
more...
valuablehurdle
07-24 10:19 PM
I am ready to support your move in any way possible. I live in PA. Let nme know how I should move forward.
hot Layered Blonde Hairstyles
silent_k
05-20 12:38 PM
Has anyone been in this situation? Any help is much appreciated.
Thanks in advance
Thanks in advance
more...
house layered hairstyle pictures
ItIsNotFunny
12-30 03:14 PM
5. I will pay IV at least $5.00 a month
Nice one!
Nice one!
tattoo layered hairstyles,
makemygc
07-09 10:03 PM
Greeting Cards :p
Now that we have media attention with USCIS we should start letting Congress know of our plight too. Vice President who I think is the chair of the senate and Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker.:D
Adding whackiness to it. How about creating just one big huge monster greeting card with all the signatures from affecting people and put it in front of white house or some place we get the attention.
Now that we have media attention with USCIS we should start letting Congress know of our plight too. Vice President who I think is the chair of the senate and Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker.:D
Adding whackiness to it. How about creating just one big huge monster greeting card with all the signatures from affecting people and put it in front of white house or some place we get the attention.
more...
pictures length layered hairstyles.
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.
dresses length layered hairstyle
quizzer
09-11 01:25 PM
What all information can be verified during this biometrics appointment � Full Name (no spelling mistake), Address �on 485, EAD and AP???
more...
makeup long layered hairstyle
mkedesi
10-07 11:15 PM
One of my friend got their Fingerprinting letter and the last name is misspelled. What should they do go ahead and take it to the FP office or call USCIS and get it corrected.
Anyone in similar sitaution? Please advise.
Anyone in similar sitaution? Please advise.
girlfriend hairstyles Chic Long Layered
clockwork
10-14 03:16 PM
Gurus,
I filed for AOS during July 2007 fiasco. I filed I-140 (Company A)concurrently with I-485. This concurrently filed I-140 got denied. I had another approved I-140 (Company B)from a different employer. My I-485 is still pending. Is there anyway to use AC-21 to reuse old approved I-140 for this pending I-485? Thanks for your valuable inputs.
Thanks -
I filed for AOS during July 2007 fiasco. I filed I-140 (Company A)concurrently with I-485. This concurrently filed I-140 got denied. I had another approved I-140 (Company B)from a different employer. My I-485 is still pending. Is there anyway to use AC-21 to reuse old approved I-140 for this pending I-485? Thanks for your valuable inputs.
Thanks -
hairstyles 2011 Medium Layered Hairstyles
ruchigup
08-21 04:46 PM
<
perm2gc
06-28 01:08 AM
Hi
I
Please stop posting such posts.
I
Please stop posting such posts.
sdckkbc
03-23 06:24 PM
I have I-140 approved from my old employer. My new employer is starting my PERM. We plan to port my old priority date. My question is at what stage of GC process from new emplyer can the old priority date be proted - PERM, I-140 or I485?
No comments:
Post a Comment