guchi472000
03-18 05:06 PM
How she can apply for EAD...? My PD are Jan 2006 EB2. How can i get her EAD card.
Please suggest me....
If you have some knowledge can u pls share plus if you suggest me any website from where i can take help that will be grateful.
Please suggest me....
If you have some knowledge can u pls share plus if you suggest me any website from where i can take help that will be grateful.
wallpaper 1999 Daihatsu Terios Kid
meher
12-24 12:56 PM
So i should report the pay for sep to dec in substitute W2 though i have not received it from my employer right and also report to DOL for the same.
renupond
10-04 10:46 PM
No I am not related to eadguru.
I simply need this info for my spouse.
Thanks
I simply need this info for my spouse.
Thanks
2011 Daihatsu terios kid engine
calboy78
01-09 12:47 PM
which service center? You can ask your employer to ask USCIS as 140 is employer's application.
more...
sdrblr
09-21 10:41 AM
Quick question... Do you know why your H1 extension was rejected(denied). If the reason is client letter, why and how do you think it will be approved with a new company when they will have to get the same letter from the same client. How different will be your situation.
If the reason is not for client letter, then ignore the above question.
Hi,
I am in a situation and hope someone here would be able to provide me with some advice. I was employed by Company A since 2006 and I was working at a Client location for the last 3 years. There is company B who is the primary vendor for the Client. Recently my H1 extension was denied and so I went out of status. I reached out to my end client for help. Since they are happy with my work, they said that they can talk to another vendor (company C) to sponsor a new H1 for me. Company C is now ready to file my H1 but the problem is that Company A somehow got to know about this and is enforcing a non compete agreement on me.
I wanted to know if they can do this even though the H1 was denied and they are unable to provide me with any job. Can they stop me from earning my livelihood. I did not go out and breached any contract, I am trying to move only because my H1 with company A has been denied. The only thing is that the end client is the same.
Regards
H1BInTrouble
If the reason is not for client letter, then ignore the above question.
Hi,
I am in a situation and hope someone here would be able to provide me with some advice. I was employed by Company A since 2006 and I was working at a Client location for the last 3 years. There is company B who is the primary vendor for the Client. Recently my H1 extension was denied and so I went out of status. I reached out to my end client for help. Since they are happy with my work, they said that they can talk to another vendor (company C) to sponsor a new H1 for me. Company C is now ready to file my H1 but the problem is that Company A somehow got to know about this and is enforcing a non compete agreement on me.
I wanted to know if they can do this even though the H1 was denied and they are unable to provide me with any job. Can they stop me from earning my livelihood. I did not go out and breached any contract, I am trying to move only because my H1 with company A has been denied. The only thing is that the end client is the same.
Regards
H1BInTrouble
crystal
09-14 03:43 PM
i understood that. I was just kidding :Di meant the quality was like, that perhaps my computer is messing it up
more...
meridiani.planum
08-06 12:38 PM
Received an email from CRIS stating that Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident. Those who are tracking approval, check out IV profile/tracker.
congratulations!! You have been a longtime contributor to IV forums, and have given very good advice to lots of people. Hope you continue to visit here occasionally, your experience and knowledge will help lots of other people.
Though first things first: chill out, its champagne time!! Enjoy!!
congratulations!! You have been a longtime contributor to IV forums, and have given very good advice to lots of people. Hope you continue to visit here occasionally, your experience and knowledge will help lots of other people.
Though first things first: chill out, its champagne time!! Enjoy!!
2010 Daihatsu Terios kid ()
rangaswamy
10-25 04:30 PM
Mine still says pending even though i received it 2 weeks ago....
but my spouses status was spot on through the process..
but my spouses status was spot on through the process..
more...
sunny1000
07-23 01:38 AM
For Labor substitution cases, is there premium processing for I-140? Earlier, USCIS announced that from 05/18/2007 to 07/16/2007, it was stopping premium processing for Labor substitution cases. Any change now?
No PP for labor subs. No PP for other EB cases until 8/2/07 atleast. They may extend that because of the I-485 filings which will happen until 8/17.
No PP for labor subs. No PP for other EB cases until 8/2/07 atleast. They may extend that because of the I-485 filings which will happen until 8/17.
hair 2005 Daihatsu Terios KID
cheg
07-26 01:49 AM
I think you should read this thread to help you understand what EAD does for you and your spouse.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=10817
Now for your second question, if you're I-140 gets rejected then your I-485 will be rejected too. The approved EAD will be discontinued if you switched from H1 to EAD and you will no longer be legal in the US. If you think you're I-485 is not a strong case it's bettter to stay on H1 and not use EAD even if they issue you one. Good luck! Hope I was able to answer your question. :)
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=10817
Now for your second question, if you're I-140 gets rejected then your I-485 will be rejected too. The approved EAD will be discontinued if you switched from H1 to EAD and you will no longer be legal in the US. If you think you're I-485 is not a strong case it's bettter to stay on H1 and not use EAD even if they issue you one. Good luck! Hope I was able to answer your question. :)
more...
mjdup
02-12 12:42 PM
This is a start and a good one....:) Bravo for being honest and stepping in..
hot DAIHATSU TERIOS KID FOR SALE -
ss1026
07-06 11:43 AM
YOu are correct. If you have an approved I-140, you get
- 1 year extension if PD is current
- 3 years if your PD is not current
- 1 year extension if PD is current
- 3 years if your PD is not current
more...
house 2000 Daihatsu Terios KID
shaikhshehzadali
07-11 11:35 AM
No big deal man...mine was approved in 2 days from NSC..;)
tattoo YAHOO / DAIHATSU / TERIOS KID
Queen Josephine
June 18th, 2005, 10:06 PM
In the words of William F. Buckley Jr..... some of my first instincts are reprehensible! Glad you finally got CS2....How are you liking it so far? (It IS out of the box isn't it?)
more...
pictures Daihatsu Terios Kid
anu_t
06-17 01:31 AM
I wanted to ask IV if there is anything we are doing for people like me.
After frustrated with the consultant company I joined a full time job. and now am 5'th year of H1B. The LC will be applied after 1 to 3 month(big company and there laws as you have to complete 1 year and then adv etc etc)
So If the bill passes I even can't apply for LC and so force to go back after 6 years.
Now as everybody is ready to file for 485 nobody cares about this CIR bill but me only.
Are there ANY people left like me?
After frustrated with the consultant company I joined a full time job. and now am 5'th year of H1B. The LC will be applied after 1 to 3 month(big company and there laws as you have to complete 1 year and then adv etc etc)
So If the bill passes I even can't apply for LC and so force to go back after 6 years.
Now as everybody is ready to file for 485 nobody cares about this CIR bill but me only.
Are there ANY people left like me?
dresses Daihatsu terios kid engine
skumar9
04-13 03:20 PM
In my Query it states as 30 days...
more...
makeup DAIHATSU TERIOS KID
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
girlfriend YAHOO / DAIHATSU / TERIOS KID
tinuverma
03-18 11:45 AM
I am on H1 (8th year - not using EAD which I have) right now and a citizen friend of mine wants me to be involved with his website company. Business would involve subscription based access to website. He has hinted that one thing he is willing to consider is awarding me some percentage share in the company in return for my services as his website is not yet profitable.
If I would like to take that, what is the way to go?
1. Specifically, can someone tell me what I should do - LLC, something else...?
2. How would I pay myself from this without breaking H1-B laws?
3. If tomorrow I wanna close this company as I dont want to keep it for any reason, is there anything I need to be concerned with? Or it's as easy to close as a simple status update, call, etc?
Thanks
T
If I would like to take that, what is the way to go?
1. Specifically, can someone tell me what I should do - LLC, something else...?
2. How would I pay myself from this without breaking H1-B laws?
3. If tomorrow I wanna close this company as I dont want to keep it for any reason, is there anything I need to be concerned with? Or it's as easy to close as a simple status update, call, etc?
Thanks
T
hairstyles Daihatsu Terios Kid 4x4 Jeep
wandmaker
11-15 08:31 AM
2. If I don't loose my H1B status, I am planning to transfer my H1B in Feb 2010. Will there be any problem in H1B transfer.
.
If you read along the same lines....
Thank you roseball. What is H1 COE?
COE = Change Of Employer
.
If you read along the same lines....
Thank you roseball. What is H1 COE?
COE = Change Of Employer
GCwaitforever
04-11 03:13 PM
Edit your profile. Then info appears in the tracker automatically.
rkat
12-13 03:46 PM
Swamy - (with due respect to IV who i totally support in every which way!) but what have u done other than joining a state chapter, contributing $$ to IV and holding signs at the DC rally.?? Is this what ur life has come to now..?? Only to motivate people to join IV..?? How long do u plan on conitnuing to do this.?? Wake up buddy..!! Yes we are stuck in this mess now having filed for AOS and the indefinite future wait for cases to be approved..!! There is no doubt about that.
But somebody like dyekek12 who seems to be new to the immigration world - whats the harm in sharing with him options that maybe more practical for him 3-5 years from now.! If somebody would have adviced me back in the hay days - i would have surely listened.! There are 3 SENIOR members who seem to agree to what i have said.! All of us cannot be socially challenged.! Sorry swamy - i disagree.! How would a college professor or a dept. head answer his Q....Myfriend - ..." there is the real world and then there is the immigration world........!!!! "
The immigration system here in the US is like fire - and if u try playing with fire there is no doubt in my mind that you will only get burnt.!! (again - i'm not a village bellie neither am i socially challeged - i am only being realistic.! thats all.! and i know it hurts!)
But somebody like dyekek12 who seems to be new to the immigration world - whats the harm in sharing with him options that maybe more practical for him 3-5 years from now.! If somebody would have adviced me back in the hay days - i would have surely listened.! There are 3 SENIOR members who seem to agree to what i have said.! All of us cannot be socially challenged.! Sorry swamy - i disagree.! How would a college professor or a dept. head answer his Q....Myfriend - ..." there is the real world and then there is the immigration world........!!!! "
The immigration system here in the US is like fire - and if u try playing with fire there is no doubt in my mind that you will only get burnt.!! (again - i'm not a village bellie neither am i socially challeged - i am only being realistic.! thats all.! and i know it hurts!)
No comments:
Post a Comment