ramus
06-14 10:45 AM
Please do not create new thred for single question you have..
Also please follow other threds and see if your question is answerd some where.
Yes you can file for 485 even if you have 140 pending.
Since all categories are current as of july 1st, can i file for 485/EAD/AP even if my 140 is still pending. thanks.
Also please follow other threds and see if your question is answerd some where.
Yes you can file for 485 even if you have 140 pending.
Since all categories are current as of july 1st, can i file for 485/EAD/AP even if my 140 is still pending. thanks.
wallpaper How To Train Your Dragon
ArkBird
12-13 01:20 PM
Recently I got soft LUD on my approved I-140 which was approved back in April, 2007.
Any ideas what it could be about?
Thanks!
ArkBird
Any ideas what it could be about?
Thanks!
ArkBird
bhartigorkar
07-26 11:45 AM
I am not the art student.Just using online resources i was trying to build my skills.May be this is reflecting in my work now.So i have decided to quit from this competition.I am taking back all of my entries.
Thanks
Bharti
Thanks
Bharti
2011 How to Train Your Dragon Blu
jatinr
09-21 05:44 PM
I had applied on July 19th to Nebraska. My I-140 was approved from TX.
Today I received transfer notice WAC...., mentioning that they have transferred my case to TX Service center.
The receipt date is of Sep 14th, Notice date of Sep 17th'2007.
Does it mean I lost the original filing receipt date of July 20th'2007.
Today I received transfer notice WAC...., mentioning that they have transferred my case to TX Service center.
The receipt date is of Sep 14th, Notice date of Sep 17th'2007.
Does it mean I lost the original filing receipt date of July 20th'2007.
more...
piyu7444
05-05 10:56 PM
You should get to talk to USCIS coz this is wrong for sure......USCIS should issue you a new EAD with no additional cost.........Even if you do not plan to use EAD card get the issue fixed.......
angiusa
04-03 04:04 PM
I have worked for Company "A"(Ex-employer) under H1-B(company A holding my H1-b) from 2007-2010. During 2009 & 2010, company A was unable to clear all my payments as the company went through some financial hurdles but they issued W-2 for the amount paid in fiscal year 2009. Now, company A has got money and they decided to clear my back wages for 2009-2010 through 1099 form. I transferred my H1-B visa to Company B(2010) then to Company C(current employer). Now, Company C has started my Green card(GC) process.
Questions:
1. I already received W2 for 2009. Can company A amend the W2 for the back wages?
2. Is it legal to take the unpaid amount under 1099? Will it affect my GC process?
3. What are my options to get my back wages from company A?
4. Company A want to issue 1099 along with a letter stating that i was full time employee for the time period mentioned in 1099. Is it acceptable?
I really appreciate your help for taking your valuable time in clarifying my questions. I look forward for your reply.
Questions:
1. I already received W2 for 2009. Can company A amend the W2 for the back wages?
2. Is it legal to take the unpaid amount under 1099? Will it affect my GC process?
3. What are my options to get my back wages from company A?
4. Company A want to issue 1099 along with a letter stating that i was full time employee for the time period mentioned in 1099. Is it acceptable?
I really appreciate your help for taking your valuable time in clarifying my questions. I look forward for your reply.
more...
invincibleasian
02-19 05:25 PM
Wait for an RFE. Otherwise ignore. First rule never provide any additional information than what is required.
2010 How to train your Dragon
feedfront
09-02 03:21 PM
Thanks, it would have been better if separated by service center.
more...
Macaca
02-18 06:55 PM
Some paras from In Majority, Democrats Run Hill Much as GOP Did (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701352.html).
Democrats pledged to bring courtesy to the Capitol when they assumed control of Congress last month. But from the start, the new majority used its muscle to force through its agenda in the House and sideline Republicans.
And after an initial burst of lawmaking, the Democratic juggernaut has kept on rolling.
Of nine major bills passed by the House since the 110th Congress began, Republicans have been allowed to make amendments to just one, a measure directing federal research into additives to biofuels. In the arcane world of Capitol Hill, where the majority dictates which legislation comes before the House and which dies on a shelf, the ability to offer amendments from the floor is one of the minority's few tools.
Last week, the strong-arming continued during the most important debate the Congress has faced yet -- the discussion about the Iraq war. Democrats initially said they would allow Republicans to propose one alternative to the resolution denouncing a troop buildup but, days later, they thought better of it.
And yet, significant numbers of House Republicans have voted along with Democrats on the legislation passed so far -- a fact that somewhat mutes criticism about iron-fisted tactics.
In the first weeks of the new Congress, however, Democrats bypassed the usual legislative committees, refused to allow any amendments and took their agenda straight to the floor for passage. They said they needed a clear path to pass a handful of popular measures that were the basis of their successful November campaign, including expanded money for stem cell research, an increase in the federal minimum wage and implementation of recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission.
Democrats said they would impose "regular order," the rules that permit the minority to participate more widely, in short order.
But even after passing their domestic agenda, Democratic leaders have continued to marginalize Republicans, preventing them from having a voice in legislation such as a bill to withhold federal pensions from lawmakers convicted of ethics felonies and a $463 billion bill to fund the federal government for the rest of this fiscal year.
Last week's debate on the Iraq war, culminating in its passage Friday by a vote of 246 to 182, was conducted under a "closed rule," which means Republicans could not offer alternatives. "I understand what they did on their agenda," said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). "But to do a closed rule on something like this is a huge mistake. We're talking about war and peace. You don't play politics with war."
While they did not allow amendments on the Iraq debate, the Democrats gave every member of the chamber five minutes to speak on the resolution -- an unprecedented amount of debate on a nonbinding resolution, according to Thomas E. Mann, a scholar at Brookings Institution. He said that is more than the Republicans offered Democrats when the GOP passed a resolution last spring supporting the war in Iraq.
Democrats pledged to bring courtesy to the Capitol when they assumed control of Congress last month. But from the start, the new majority used its muscle to force through its agenda in the House and sideline Republicans.
And after an initial burst of lawmaking, the Democratic juggernaut has kept on rolling.
Of nine major bills passed by the House since the 110th Congress began, Republicans have been allowed to make amendments to just one, a measure directing federal research into additives to biofuels. In the arcane world of Capitol Hill, where the majority dictates which legislation comes before the House and which dies on a shelf, the ability to offer amendments from the floor is one of the minority's few tools.
Last week, the strong-arming continued during the most important debate the Congress has faced yet -- the discussion about the Iraq war. Democrats initially said they would allow Republicans to propose one alternative to the resolution denouncing a troop buildup but, days later, they thought better of it.
And yet, significant numbers of House Republicans have voted along with Democrats on the legislation passed so far -- a fact that somewhat mutes criticism about iron-fisted tactics.
In the first weeks of the new Congress, however, Democrats bypassed the usual legislative committees, refused to allow any amendments and took their agenda straight to the floor for passage. They said they needed a clear path to pass a handful of popular measures that were the basis of their successful November campaign, including expanded money for stem cell research, an increase in the federal minimum wage and implementation of recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission.
Democrats said they would impose "regular order," the rules that permit the minority to participate more widely, in short order.
But even after passing their domestic agenda, Democratic leaders have continued to marginalize Republicans, preventing them from having a voice in legislation such as a bill to withhold federal pensions from lawmakers convicted of ethics felonies and a $463 billion bill to fund the federal government for the rest of this fiscal year.
Last week's debate on the Iraq war, culminating in its passage Friday by a vote of 246 to 182, was conducted under a "closed rule," which means Republicans could not offer alternatives. "I understand what they did on their agenda," said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). "But to do a closed rule on something like this is a huge mistake. We're talking about war and peace. You don't play politics with war."
While they did not allow amendments on the Iraq debate, the Democrats gave every member of the chamber five minutes to speak on the resolution -- an unprecedented amount of debate on a nonbinding resolution, according to Thomas E. Mann, a scholar at Brookings Institution. He said that is more than the Republicans offered Democrats when the GOP passed a resolution last spring supporting the war in Iraq.
hair how-to-train-your-dragon-movie
donako_99
05-19 12:00 PM
Hello,
I have attended Toronto consulate on Apr 18th for my 7th yr h1b stamping. I have i140 approval. The consul gave me 221g yellow form and later received 2 emails asking for some documents which I submitted. I still have not heard any response and I understand it could take months before I get any answer. My question is can I leave Canada and go to India while the process is in review and come back to Canada if and when my H1b stamping is approved. I have multiple entry visa to Canada so I could potentially come back. My question is can I leave Canada while my visa is under process and would it have any affect?
Thanks,
Indira
I have attended Toronto consulate on Apr 18th for my 7th yr h1b stamping. I have i140 approval. The consul gave me 221g yellow form and later received 2 emails asking for some documents which I submitted. I still have not heard any response and I understand it could take months before I get any answer. My question is can I leave Canada and go to India while the process is in review and come back to Canada if and when my H1b stamping is approved. I have multiple entry visa to Canada so I could potentially come back. My question is can I leave Canada while my visa is under process and would it have any affect?
Thanks,
Indira
more...
Macaca
08-16 05:40 PM
Is the Senate Germane? Majority Leader Reid's Lament (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_19/procedural_politics/19719-1.html) By Don Wolfensberger | Roll Call, August 13, 2007
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
hot How to Train Your Dragon
ebizash
08-29 09:40 AM
There is no such thing as AP Renewal, it is always a fresh application. That is the reason application does not mention anything about renewal.
more...
house How To Train Your Dragon
Blog Feeds
07-02 04:40 PM
A new poll from Benenson Strategy Group (commissioned by America's Voice), has a surprising finding - the vast majority of self-identified GOP voters support immigration reform. The poll found the following: When asked whether they support Congress passing �comprehensive immigration reform,� without hearing details about what the plan includes, 63% of Republicans said yes and 22% said no. When given the details behind reform, and asked whether they support Congress passing a law that would: �Secure the border, crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, and require illegal immigrants to register for legal immigration status, pay back taxes, and...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/poll-most-gop-voters-support-immigration-reform.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/poll-most-gop-voters-support-immigration-reform.html)
tattoo how-to-train-your-dragon-movie
sambhajisgayake
01-09 05:58 PM
Hi,
I have applied for a duplicate passport 4 weeks back because my passport was damaged. I am trying to call consulate office for the status. But they said that they do not provide any status inquiry. I urgently need passport as i have to go back to india ASAP. is there any way to know the current status and speed up the delivery of duplicate passport? Normally how long it takes to get a duplicate passport.
Please help me, I will highly appreciate your help.
Thanks,
Sambhaji
I have applied for a duplicate passport 4 weeks back because my passport was damaged. I am trying to call consulate office for the status. But they said that they do not provide any status inquiry. I urgently need passport as i have to go back to india ASAP. is there any way to know the current status and speed up the delivery of duplicate passport? Normally how long it takes to get a duplicate passport.
Please help me, I will highly appreciate your help.
Thanks,
Sambhaji
more...
pictures How to Train Your Dragon movie
achu
06-05 03:18 PM
Hi,
I am confused with AP expiration date.
The printed exiration date is :July 29, 2009
But my latest paroled stamp on AP it is : Dec 05, 2009.
Which date should i follow to renew my AP?
thanks
achu
I am confused with AP expiration date.
The printed exiration date is :July 29, 2009
But my latest paroled stamp on AP it is : Dec 05, 2009.
Which date should i follow to renew my AP?
thanks
achu
dresses The real winner of this movie
miguy
07-13 03:03 PM
bump.........
more...
makeup 20 How to Train Your Dragon
thesparky007
04-24 01:53 PM
looks nice!
girlfriend How to Train Your Dragon
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.
hairstyles How to Train Your Dragon
vaccine
02-07 09:13 AM
Chicago to Delhi
yes we came back on new year and flight was very good, nice food and staff was really cooperative. At POE it took us 2 min to get out of immigration and custom check. Officers were polite and nice. We both used AP and no questions were asked. I would highly recommond this flight.
yes we came back on new year and flight was very good, nice food and staff was really cooperative. At POE it took us 2 min to get out of immigration and custom check. Officers were polite and nice. We both used AP and no questions were asked. I would highly recommond this flight.
ragz4u
05-01 10:26 AM
Please treat this as urgent. Send an email to shrey@immigrationvoice.org
Thanks
shrey
Thanks
shrey
vallabhu
08-05 10:43 AM
Guys, My appeal "I290B" for a denied I140 under EB3 category was submitted on March 5th 2008 to TEXAS service center AAO.
I have 2 questions in tracking the application
1) Are all I290B's processed initially where I140 is denied and then later sent to DC office, or completely processed by TSC.
2) If the applications are sent to DC after review by TSC. how long does TSC take to review the application before forwarding to DC and how long will DC require to process the application to close the case (I know total is 14 months for EB3)
I have 2 questions in tracking the application
1) Are all I290B's processed initially where I140 is denied and then later sent to DC office, or completely processed by TSC.
2) If the applications are sent to DC after review by TSC. how long does TSC take to review the application before forwarding to DC and how long will DC require to process the application to close the case (I know total is 14 months for EB3)
No comments:
Post a Comment