sertasheep
09-10 10:26 PM
The transcript from the 01 Sept 06 conference call with Ms. Sonal Mehta-Verma, Immigration Attorney is now available on ImmigrationVoice at the following link: Immigration Attorney Conference Calls (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1267)
Questions that were unable to be answered during this conference call will be reviewed by the attorney for the next conference call.
At this time, we are inviting questions for the next conference call.
Members are encouraged to send in their questions (rather than posting them on forums) to leverage of this free legal consultation available through Immigration Voice using the procedure outlined in the link above.
Questions that were unable to be answered during this conference call will be reviewed by the attorney for the next conference call.
At this time, we are inviting questions for the next conference call.
Members are encouraged to send in their questions (rather than posting them on forums) to leverage of this free legal consultation available through Immigration Voice using the procedure outlined in the link above.
wallpaper Justin Bieber Crying Like A
prdgl
02-13 10:06 PM
Thanks a lot. This is more in depth and I am not understood how these things work.
So if I have MS+ 0 then I think I have to post my ad for JobZone 5. In that case, my SVP will be 7 because MS = 4 yrs and 0 expr = nothing. So i will not exceed SVP 7.
So is the combination,
JobZone 5 with an SVP 7 will work for MS+0 ?
Also for a software developer or related work, i don't see JobZone5. What kind of positions suit for JobZone 5 in SOFTWARE DEVELOPER'S world ?
Anybody know about these things ? please drop in your thoughts
Thanks
So if I have MS+ 0 then I think I have to post my ad for JobZone 5. In that case, my SVP will be 7 because MS = 4 yrs and 0 expr = nothing. So i will not exceed SVP 7.
So is the combination,
JobZone 5 with an SVP 7 will work for MS+0 ?
Also for a software developer or related work, i don't see JobZone5. What kind of positions suit for JobZone 5 in SOFTWARE DEVELOPER'S world ?
Anybody know about these things ? please drop in your thoughts
Thanks
rakesh_one
03-18 10:51 AM
No. OPT means in F1. As long as you register for enough credits, your status continues. The enough credits is determined by your international advisor.
2011 Justin Bieber Crying Like A
pointlesswait
02-19 06:20 PM
:confused:
Am currently in my 7th year H1 and have got admission into a parttime MBA program!
1.) I just wanted to clarify if i can accept scholarship in form of tution waivers? (not a income?)
2.) I am aware i cannot accept any scholarships which may require me working as a TA or RA? as this is a income...
but is a non-income school sponsored tution waiver an accepectable option>
Any gurus on this board like to throw some light on this!!!:confused:
Am currently in my 7th year H1 and have got admission into a parttime MBA program!
1.) I just wanted to clarify if i can accept scholarship in form of tution waivers? (not a income?)
2.) I am aware i cannot accept any scholarships which may require me working as a TA or RA? as this is a income...
but is a non-income school sponsored tution waiver an accepectable option>
Any gurus on this board like to throw some light on this!!!:confused:
more...
akhilmahajan
03-11 12:43 PM
Can the other New England states join this Action Item?
GO I/WE GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
GO I/WE GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
cj4ualways
09-11 03:40 PM
Hi,
I am on H-1B with a company and have been through my 4years of H-1. Now they are saying that they might not be able to apply for my PR before the start of my 6th year of H-1 and are offering me the following option: Need to leave US and go back to India or any other country, will be paid US salary and then after one year will be brought back on a L-1A visa. Now my question is can they pay in US dollars while i am outside US and still be able to come back on L-1A visa? or do i need to change into local payroll?
I am on H-1B with a company and have been through my 4years of H-1. Now they are saying that they might not be able to apply for my PR before the start of my 6th year of H-1 and are offering me the following option: Need to leave US and go back to India or any other country, will be paid US salary and then after one year will be brought back on a L-1A visa. Now my question is can they pay in US dollars while i am outside US and still be able to come back on L-1A visa? or do i need to change into local payroll?
more...
Blog Feeds
01-22 03:00 PM
Vows to Move Fast for Haitian Immigrants in U.S. - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/us/21immig.html?sms_ss=blogger)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-1733329813943632350?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/vows-to-move-fast-for-haitian.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-1733329813943632350?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/vows-to-move-fast-for-haitian.html)
2010 was “crying like a aby”.
GCwaitforever
04-25 01:04 PM
There is so much dysfunction in USCIS. See the complaint to investigate this problem. There are folks sitting from 2001/2002 and USCIS does not bother about their petitions.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=242770&postcount=44
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=242770&postcount=44
more...
reddymjm
09-07 06:36 PM
I am predicting EB3 move to June 2002 by end of Sep 2011
1st Qtr: 3/1/2010
2nd Qtr:4/9/2010
3rd Qtr: 5/6/2010
4th Qtr: 6/1/2010
Correct the year. HEre is mine in this fun game.
1st Qtr: 3/1/2002
2nd Qtr:4/9/2002
3rd Qtr: 5/6/2002
4th Qtr: 6/1/2003.
Dont ask me HOW? Wait and see..:D
1st Qtr: 3/1/2010
2nd Qtr:4/9/2010
3rd Qtr: 5/6/2010
4th Qtr: 6/1/2010
Correct the year. HEre is mine in this fun game.
1st Qtr: 3/1/2002
2nd Qtr:4/9/2002
3rd Qtr: 5/6/2002
4th Qtr: 6/1/2003.
Dont ask me HOW? Wait and see..:D
hair and women, Justin Bieber.
Blog Feeds
06-19 01:30 PM
I received the following note from a reader and wanted to pass it on to all of you since this is a really important cause: I was reading your blog and I wanted to let you know about a DREAM Act event happening next Tuesday. The United We Dream Coalition and Dreamactivist.org will be holding a National DREAM Act Graduation ceremony in Washington D.C. on June 23rd. The event will be attended by over 500 students from across the country. Also, representatives from Microsoft and College Board will be in attendance and will hand out Activism Awards to students who...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/dream-act-graduations-this-coming-tuesday.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/dream-act-graduations-this-coming-tuesday.html)
more...
n8900498
07-27 08:03 PM
I signed an employment agreement stating that if I had to leave my employer before getting my Green Card that I will be liable for all the fees pertaining to the Green Card application which my employer has been paying for while I am been employed by him.
I have heard that an employer cannot hold Green Card fees over an employee. I also believe if anything, the fees owing should drop according to the length of time that the employee has worked for that employer.
I have been with my current employer for 4 years now and I wish to leave him but I do not want to pay him for the Green Card fees as I believe that should be a business expense to him.
I would just like to know what are my rights in the above case
Best Regards
I have heard that an employer cannot hold Green Card fees over an employee. I also believe if anything, the fees owing should drop according to the length of time that the employee has worked for that employer.
I have been with my current employer for 4 years now and I wish to leave him but I do not want to pay him for the Green Card fees as I believe that should be a business expense to him.
I would just like to know what are my rights in the above case
Best Regards
hot JUSTIN Bieber thinks he is
milind70
07-25 12:53 PM
Anybody filed Un Signed Labor Substitution?
Since the cut off date was Jul 17th my attorney filed un signed Labor substitution with I-140.
Any experince any body has, I request you to share that here.
Chance of denial or rejection is very high if the Labor substitue application is not signed by the applicant.
Since the cut off date was Jul 17th my attorney filed un signed Labor substitution with I-140.
Any experince any body has, I request you to share that here.
Chance of denial or rejection is very high if the Labor substitue application is not signed by the applicant.
more...
house justin bieber crying pictures.
medococo
02-18 08:10 AM
whats the number of NVC /??
tattoo you and justin bieber were the
GCAmigo
12-07 07:35 PM
send fax/email instead..
more...
pictures These girls crying, it#39;s like
Blog Feeds
11-10 03:40 AM
My friend Margaret Stock has prepared an excellent report for the Immigration Policy Center entitled ESSENTIAL TO THE FIGHT: IMMIGRANTS IN THE MILITARY EIGHT YEARS AFTER 9/11. Margaret, an officer in the army and the undisputed leading national expert on immigration and the American armed forces, notes a number of key findings in her report: As of June 30, 2009, there were 114,601 foreign-born individuals serving in the armed forces, representing 7.91 percent of the 1.4 million military personnel on active duty. Roughly 80.97 percent of foreign-born service members were naturalized U.S. citizens, while 12.66 percent were not U.S. citizens....
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/immigrants-playing-critical-role-in-military.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/immigrants-playing-critical-role-in-military.html)
dresses selena gomez crying in justin
Mayday
04-03 03:52 PM
As far as I know it does not matter what company profile is, it only matters what type of job they have and if they able to pay as required for the period of time they apply for.
more...
makeup 3 Year Old Crying Over Justin
Macaca
10-28 09:52 AM
It's time we seriously ponder fixing the Constitution (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/28/INCHSUV9I.DTL&hw=immigration&sn=008&sc=247) By Larry J. Sabato | San Francisco Chronicle, October 28, 2007
Professor Larry J. Sabato is the author of "A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country" (Walker & Company, 2007). He is the founder and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.
What is the undisturbed and unaddressed source of many of the nation's current difficulties? It's the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution has become a secularly sacred document, as though God handed it to Moses in a third tablet on the Mount. The 2008 presidential candidates have been offering us prescriptions for everything from Iraq to health care over the past several months. But here is the problem: Their fixes are situational and incremental. In the meantime, underlying structural problems with America's governmental and political system are preventing us from solving our most intractable challenges.
If progress as a society is to be made, it is time for elemental change. The last place we look to understand why the U.S. system isn't working well anymore - the Constitution - should be the first place. A careful look at constitutional reform should begin now and culminate in a new Constitutional Convention.
Does this sound radical? If so, then the framers were radicals, too. They would be both disappointed and amazed that after 220 years, the inheritors of their Constitution had not tried to adapt to new developments they could never have anticipated in Philadelphia in 1787. Urging his future countrymen to take advantage of their own experiences with government, George Washington declared, "I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us."
Thomas Jefferson insisted that "No society can make a perpetual Constitution. ... The earth belongs always to the living generation. ... Every Constitution ... naturally expires at the end of 19 years," the length of a generation in Jefferson's time.
The overall design of the Constitution remains brilliant and sound with respect to the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers. But there are numerous archaic provisions that inhibit constructive change and adaptation to a 21st century world unimaginable to the framers.
Let's explore a few: More than 14 million U.S. citizens are automatically and irrevocably barred from holding the office of president simply because they were not born in the United States - either they are immigrants or their U.S. mothers gave birth to them while outside U.S. territory. This exclusion creates a noxious form of second-class citizenship. The requirement that the president must be a "natural born citizen" should be replaced with a condition that a candidate must be a U.S. citizen for at least 20 years before election to the presidency.
Both the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts have illustrated a modern imbalance in the constitutional power to wage war. Once Congress consented to these wars, presidents were able to continue them for many years long after popular support had drastically declined. Limit the president's war-making authority by creating a provision that requires Congress to vote affirmatively every six months to continue U.S. military involvement. Debate in both houses would be limited so that the vote could not be delayed. If either house of Congress voted to end a war, the president would have one year to withdraw all combat troops.
If the 26 least populated states voted as a bloc, they would control the U.S. Senate with a total of just under 17 percent of the country's population. This small-state stranglehold is not merely a bump in the road; it is a massive roadblock to fairness that can, and often does, stop all progressive traffic. We should give each of the 10 most populated states two additional Senate seats and give each of the next 15 most populated states one additional seat. Sparsely populated states will still be disproportionately represented, but the ridiculous tilt to them in today's system can be a thing of the past.
If someone purposefully tried to conjure up the most random and illogical method of nominating presidential candidates, the resulting system would probably look much as ours does today. The incoherent lineup of primaries and caucuses forces candidates to campaign at least a year before the first nomination contest so they can become known nationwide and raise the money needed to compete. Congress should be constitutionally required to designate four regions of contiguous states; the regions would hold their nominating events in successive months, beginning in April and ending in July. A U.S. Election Lottery, to be held on Jan. 1 of the presidential election year, would determine the order of regional events. The new system would add an element of drama to the beginning of a presidential year while also shortening the campaign: No one would know in which region the contest would begin until New Year's Day.
Excessive authority has accrued to the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court - so much so that had the framers realized the courts' eventual powers, they would have limited judicial authority. The insularity of lifetime tenure, combined with the appointments of relatively young attorneys who give long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than views of the current day. A nonrenewable term limit of 15 years should apply to all federal judges, from the district courts all the way up to the Supreme Court.
This all is just a mere scratch on the surface in identifying long-overdue constitutional reforms. There are dozens of other worthy proposals than can and ought to be discussed, if we but have the will to imagine a better Constitution. No rational person will rush to change the Constitution, and it will take many years of thorough-going work. But let's at least start the discussion, and begin thinking about the generation-long process that could lead to a new constitutional convention sometime this century.
Professor Larry J. Sabato is the author of "A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country" (Walker & Company, 2007). He is the founder and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.
What is the undisturbed and unaddressed source of many of the nation's current difficulties? It's the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution has become a secularly sacred document, as though God handed it to Moses in a third tablet on the Mount. The 2008 presidential candidates have been offering us prescriptions for everything from Iraq to health care over the past several months. But here is the problem: Their fixes are situational and incremental. In the meantime, underlying structural problems with America's governmental and political system are preventing us from solving our most intractable challenges.
If progress as a society is to be made, it is time for elemental change. The last place we look to understand why the U.S. system isn't working well anymore - the Constitution - should be the first place. A careful look at constitutional reform should begin now and culminate in a new Constitutional Convention.
Does this sound radical? If so, then the framers were radicals, too. They would be both disappointed and amazed that after 220 years, the inheritors of their Constitution had not tried to adapt to new developments they could never have anticipated in Philadelphia in 1787. Urging his future countrymen to take advantage of their own experiences with government, George Washington declared, "I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us."
Thomas Jefferson insisted that "No society can make a perpetual Constitution. ... The earth belongs always to the living generation. ... Every Constitution ... naturally expires at the end of 19 years," the length of a generation in Jefferson's time.
The overall design of the Constitution remains brilliant and sound with respect to the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers. But there are numerous archaic provisions that inhibit constructive change and adaptation to a 21st century world unimaginable to the framers.
Let's explore a few: More than 14 million U.S. citizens are automatically and irrevocably barred from holding the office of president simply because they were not born in the United States - either they are immigrants or their U.S. mothers gave birth to them while outside U.S. territory. This exclusion creates a noxious form of second-class citizenship. The requirement that the president must be a "natural born citizen" should be replaced with a condition that a candidate must be a U.S. citizen for at least 20 years before election to the presidency.
Both the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts have illustrated a modern imbalance in the constitutional power to wage war. Once Congress consented to these wars, presidents were able to continue them for many years long after popular support had drastically declined. Limit the president's war-making authority by creating a provision that requires Congress to vote affirmatively every six months to continue U.S. military involvement. Debate in both houses would be limited so that the vote could not be delayed. If either house of Congress voted to end a war, the president would have one year to withdraw all combat troops.
If the 26 least populated states voted as a bloc, they would control the U.S. Senate with a total of just under 17 percent of the country's population. This small-state stranglehold is not merely a bump in the road; it is a massive roadblock to fairness that can, and often does, stop all progressive traffic. We should give each of the 10 most populated states two additional Senate seats and give each of the next 15 most populated states one additional seat. Sparsely populated states will still be disproportionately represented, but the ridiculous tilt to them in today's system can be a thing of the past.
If someone purposefully tried to conjure up the most random and illogical method of nominating presidential candidates, the resulting system would probably look much as ours does today. The incoherent lineup of primaries and caucuses forces candidates to campaign at least a year before the first nomination contest so they can become known nationwide and raise the money needed to compete. Congress should be constitutionally required to designate four regions of contiguous states; the regions would hold their nominating events in successive months, beginning in April and ending in July. A U.S. Election Lottery, to be held on Jan. 1 of the presidential election year, would determine the order of regional events. The new system would add an element of drama to the beginning of a presidential year while also shortening the campaign: No one would know in which region the contest would begin until New Year's Day.
Excessive authority has accrued to the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court - so much so that had the framers realized the courts' eventual powers, they would have limited judicial authority. The insularity of lifetime tenure, combined with the appointments of relatively young attorneys who give long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than views of the current day. A nonrenewable term limit of 15 years should apply to all federal judges, from the district courts all the way up to the Supreme Court.
This all is just a mere scratch on the surface in identifying long-overdue constitutional reforms. There are dozens of other worthy proposals than can and ought to be discussed, if we but have the will to imagine a better Constitution. No rational person will rush to change the Constitution, and it will take many years of thorough-going work. But let's at least start the discussion, and begin thinking about the generation-long process that could lead to a new constitutional convention sometime this century.
girlfriend The Baby star recently
nat23
06-14 02:54 PM
I dont know if people would be interested in discussing the implications of all EB categories turning current. Some of the points to discuss would be:
1) Processing times for I-485
2) Effects on future GC applications.
etc
3) Whats if the CIR is passed in its current form ? How does that affect these categories is at all
1) Processing times for I-485
2) Effects on future GC applications.
etc
3) Whats if the CIR is passed in its current form ? How does that affect these categories is at all
hairstyles justin bieber crying pictures.
freddyCR
July 26th, 2005, 12:10 PM
I don't understand. Isn't this the critique forum? I'm asking for critique. What's non-topical? :(
gcseeker2002
11-01 11:06 AM
sorry in advance if this seems too obvious...if anyone has first hand experience, I really appreciate your response
i am planning to travel through UK to India from US. I have a valid 5 yr tourist visa. Do I still need a transit visa?
No.
i am planning to travel through UK to India from US. I have a valid 5 yr tourist visa. Do I still need a transit visa?
No.
jchang
04-20 07:44 PM
So I'm in need of an answer for my parents.
They have their green card and have been out of the United States for a little less than 6 months now visiting their homeland. They will be returning in a week but due to a medical circumstance that has happened with my mother overseas, she would need to go back to their homeland so she can acquire her medications and chemotherapy there. What is the minimum amount of time they would have to stay here in the United States until they can go back to their homeland?
I know you can stay out of U.S. for no more than 6 months or their green cards make be revoked, I understand that part but I'm curious if there is a minimum amount of time they'd have to stay here in the Unites States before they can go back overseas so it doesn't look bad when they go through immigration.
Thanks!
They have their green card and have been out of the United States for a little less than 6 months now visiting their homeland. They will be returning in a week but due to a medical circumstance that has happened with my mother overseas, she would need to go back to their homeland so she can acquire her medications and chemotherapy there. What is the minimum amount of time they would have to stay here in the United States until they can go back to their homeland?
I know you can stay out of U.S. for no more than 6 months or their green cards make be revoked, I understand that part but I'm curious if there is a minimum amount of time they'd have to stay here in the Unites States before they can go back overseas so it doesn't look bad when they go through immigration.
Thanks!
No comments:
Post a Comment