laksmi
11-29 05:04 PM
Alternative is invoke AC21 to a know company, who can support your feature GC and continue to work to any employer by transferring your H1B.
wallpaper Marriage-hairstyles-tips-for-
nagarimohan
10-29 11:06 AM
My Situation:
I am on H1B visa and working now with employer �A� (from Jun 10 to Till Date)
I was working with employer �B� (from Jun 09 to Jun 10)
I was previously also working with employer �A� (which is now my present employer) from Jul 08 to Mar 09,
My H1 Transfer from employer �B� to �A� has been filed in last Jun 10 but it is in Process now.
Now my present project is over, I have got a project with employer �C�
My Questions:
1. Can I join the employer �C� by filing another H1 transfer? as of now still my H1 Transfer (employer �B� to employer �A�) is in process.
2. I have also got another project with my ex employer �B�, I can see the I797 petition of the employer �B� is still showing a status of approved in the USCIS state, it has not been reoked. Can I rejoin the ex employer �B� without filing any new H1 Transfer ( from employer �A� to employer �B�).
Will appreciate your answer,
Thanks,
Nagari
I am on H1B visa and working now with employer �A� (from Jun 10 to Till Date)
I was working with employer �B� (from Jun 09 to Jun 10)
I was previously also working with employer �A� (which is now my present employer) from Jul 08 to Mar 09,
My H1 Transfer from employer �B� to �A� has been filed in last Jun 10 but it is in Process now.
Now my present project is over, I have got a project with employer �C�
My Questions:
1. Can I join the employer �C� by filing another H1 transfer? as of now still my H1 Transfer (employer �B� to employer �A�) is in process.
2. I have also got another project with my ex employer �B�, I can see the I797 petition of the employer �B� is still showing a status of approved in the USCIS state, it has not been reoked. Can I rejoin the ex employer �B� without filing any new H1 Transfer ( from employer �A� to employer �B�).
Will appreciate your answer,
Thanks,
Nagari
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
2011 Short Blonde Hairstyles
rkthoka
06-11 03:45 PM
Hi
My Mother in law appeared at hyderabad US consulate and IO told her that she got visa but asked her to come up with new passport, becoz some letters in her current passort has faded out.
Is this happend with any one? and what we do in this situation after getting new passport?
I mean do we need another appointment or just go with new passport and drop?
Please through some thouts.
Regards,
Krishna.
My Mother in law appeared at hyderabad US consulate and IO told her that she got visa but asked her to come up with new passport, becoz some letters in her current passort has faded out.
Is this happend with any one? and what we do in this situation after getting new passport?
I mean do we need another appointment or just go with new passport and drop?
Please through some thouts.
Regards,
Krishna.
more...
Blog Feeds
01-03 07:10 AM
Perhaps there is a chance we'll see some action on the DREAM Act in 2011 albeit with some major tough to accept changes. The key areas likely to change are the education requirement (mandating actually receiving a degree versus simply attending school), the ability to sponsor relatives down the road when DREAM Act finally become citizens (at least 13 years out) and criminal bars on applying.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/01/anti-immigration-center-for-immigration-studies-suggests-willingness-to-compromise-on-dream-act.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/01/anti-immigration-center-for-immigration-studies-suggests-willingness-to-compromise-on-dream-act.html)
buehler
02-08 08:12 AM
One of my friends has been unemployed for the last 6 months but his AP and EAD are current. He needs to go to India in June. Will he face any problems while coming back into the country? Should he postpone his India trip till he he has been on a job for 3-4 months? If he starts his own company and gets a salary from that will it cause problems? Also Newark is his closest airport. Is Newark OK for AP or should he try Philadelphia or JFK in New York?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
more...
IQAndreas
03-09 07:00 AM
Inspired by those classic "My parents went to Las Vegas, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" style shirts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shirt#Expressive_messages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shirt#Expressive_messages
2010 Sexy Hairstyles Gallery of
HereIComeGC
02-25 02:46 PM
I work in Philadelphia area. I have received a Job offer in NYC area which offers me a salary 70-80% more than what I earn now. Job responsibilities and descriptions are pretty much the same in new position.
I would like to run it by a good lawyer to make sure there would not be an issue with AC21 (I am well past 180 days now).
Can anyone recommend a good lawyer?
Thank you
I would like to run it by a good lawyer to make sure there would not be an issue with AC21 (I am well past 180 days now).
Can anyone recommend a good lawyer?
Thank you
more...
subikarthik
09-16 02:43 PM
Hi,I have filed H1B during August 09 ..my priority dates became current in Sep 09 and I have filed for AOS -485 /EAD ..Should I cancel my H1B or will it automatically get canceled once I receive my EAD ?Please suggest.
Thanks.
Thanks.
hair It may be the saying “londes
bhjodokast
11-10 08:52 AM
Interested in the design and development process? Your experience will be different, depending on what you need online. For instance, if you sell a product and you want it featured on it's own website, we can create a website for you.
Visit Blue Fugu Network today at http://bluefugu.biz.tm/ for more information.
Thank you!
Visit Blue Fugu Network today at http://bluefugu.biz.tm/ for more information.
Thank you!
more...
creativeFuzion
08-02 09:32 PM
bobbo, great job man! I love the pig one! Haha, is that ex President Clinton I see there? Lol, good job, I love 'em all!
~Philip
~Philip
hot pictures of long hair styles
anilsal
01-14 12:28 PM
Even when officers work on your files, there may not be any LUDs.
If you input all your case numbers (old H1B approvals etc), you will see that those get LUDs once in a while. They may be batch jobs or someone pulling files frequently or filing old applications etc.
Since your PD is a few months away, it is best to just relax and hope your applications are preadjudicated. When your PD becomes current, then go the Service Request - infopass - senator/ombudsman route.
If you are that interested, take infopass appointments and find out where your application is. If the CIS person is friendly, they give out a lot of information. Dress well and talk politely.
If you input all your case numbers (old H1B approvals etc), you will see that those get LUDs once in a while. They may be batch jobs or someone pulling files frequently or filing old applications etc.
Since your PD is a few months away, it is best to just relax and hope your applications are preadjudicated. When your PD becomes current, then go the Service Request - infopass - senator/ombudsman route.
If you are that interested, take infopass appointments and find out where your application is. If the CIS person is friendly, they give out a lot of information. Dress well and talk politely.
more...
house Celebrity Hairstyles, Hair Styles: Celebrity Blondes on GLAMOUR.com
mk26
11-24 08:26 PM
u.s. Ambassador announces more convenient u.s. Visa application process - u.s. Embassy of the united states new delhi, india (http://newdelhi.usembassy.gov/pr111810.html)
please read the above link.
good or bad?
please read the above link.
good or bad?
tattoo hairstyles for fine hair 2009.
sabgau
07-12 08:27 AM
I left my Indian consulting company and the employer owes me $14,000 which he is now refusing to pay, he says he will deduct it as a cost of H1 and GC processing fees
When I started working for him he told me that he would take care of all these costs(of course he did not give this in writing) and not at anytime was there a verbal or written agreement that I would have to repay him these costs if I left him.
What recourse do I have now?
When I started working for him he told me that he would take care of all these costs(of course he did not give this in writing) and not at anytime was there a verbal or written agreement that I would have to repay him these costs if I left him.
What recourse do I have now?
more...
pictures Sexy Blonde Bob Hairstyle
TheCanadian
05-14 07:54 PM
Could you post it in GIF?
dresses indian hairstyle | Everyday
Macaca
03-08 09:19 AM
senate panel on Hold
Who Stalled the Intelligence Bill? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/07/AR2007030702461.html)
Thursday, March 8, 2007
For what could become the third year in a row, the Senate on Tuesday evening did not pass an Intelligence Authorization Bill, over the objection of a lone Republican senator whose name is being protected by his colleagues.
John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, called the delay "one of the more embarrassing efforts I have been associated with in my 24 years in this body." The panel's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), took the Senate floor Tuesday and called on "any person who has a hold on this bill to come forward and find out what is in the bill."
Rockefeller and Bond have been working over several months to meet objections to items in the bill that the committee passed last May. With changes that Rockefeller and Bond worked out, the measure was reintroduced Jan. 27 and put on the unanimous consent calendar on Feb. 8.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, was named by Congressional Quarterly yesterday as the member who put the bill on hold. A DeMint spokesman said the senator's office "does not comment on holds," but other congressional sources said that DeMint was the one.
Those sources said that they believe the hold is due to White House objections to specific provisions, including public disclosure of the national intelligence budget; a requirement for a report on secret CIA prisons; and response to information requests by the committee chairman and vice chairman within 30 days.
"We have to be able to pass authorization bills if we are to have an impact on the intelligence community," Bond said.
Who Stalled the Intelligence Bill? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/07/AR2007030702461.html)
Thursday, March 8, 2007
For what could become the third year in a row, the Senate on Tuesday evening did not pass an Intelligence Authorization Bill, over the objection of a lone Republican senator whose name is being protected by his colleagues.
John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, called the delay "one of the more embarrassing efforts I have been associated with in my 24 years in this body." The panel's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), took the Senate floor Tuesday and called on "any person who has a hold on this bill to come forward and find out what is in the bill."
Rockefeller and Bond have been working over several months to meet objections to items in the bill that the committee passed last May. With changes that Rockefeller and Bond worked out, the measure was reintroduced Jan. 27 and put on the unanimous consent calendar on Feb. 8.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, was named by Congressional Quarterly yesterday as the member who put the bill on hold. A DeMint spokesman said the senator's office "does not comment on holds," but other congressional sources said that DeMint was the one.
Those sources said that they believe the hold is due to White House objections to specific provisions, including public disclosure of the national intelligence budget; a requirement for a report on secret CIA prisons; and response to information requests by the committee chairman and vice chairman within 30 days.
"We have to be able to pass authorization bills if we are to have an impact on the intelligence community," Bond said.
more...
makeup Hairstyles » Blonde Hair
pani_6
03-20 09:54 AM
I got my DL reneul yesterday..there want any Visa question asked at all..??..Is texas not following DL reneual only untill your visa expiry date??..:confused:
girlfriend Best short hairstyles for londes
Aah_GC
07-27 03:24 PM
Dude / Dudette.. I dont work for MSFT but the general thing is .. wait for 180 calender days post your I485 and make a move using AC21. You don't have any provisions to move with AC21 anyways. Take it easy.
hairstyles Long Hairstyle On Blondes
same_old_guy
10-10 02:48 AM
Visa Bulletin November 2009 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4576.html)
All Charge-ability Areas Except Those Listed CHINA- mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIP-PINES
1st C C C C C
2nd C 01APR05 22JAN05 C C
3rd 01JUN02 01JUN02 22APR01 01JUN02 01JUN02
Other Workers 01JUN01 01JUN01 22APR01 01JUN01 01JUN01
4th C C C C C
Certain Religious Workers U U U U U
5th C C C C C
Targeted Employ-ment Areas/ Regional Centers C C C C C
5th Pilot Programs U U U U U
All Charge-ability Areas Except Those Listed CHINA- mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIP-PINES
1st C C C C C
2nd C 01APR05 22JAN05 C C
3rd 01JUN02 01JUN02 22APR01 01JUN02 01JUN02
Other Workers 01JUN01 01JUN01 22APR01 01JUN01 01JUN01
4th C C C C C
Certain Religious Workers U U U U U
5th C C C C C
Targeted Employ-ment Areas/ Regional Centers C C C C C
5th Pilot Programs U U U U U
panchotronera
06-25 03:12 PM
Dear All,
Can someone tell me how long it takes to get 485 filing receipt? Who gets it ,you or the lawyer? What information should a responsible lawyer pass to you after 485 is filed?
Please let me know. It would be good information for everyone.
The thread "June 1st filers" has the responses to your question.
Can someone tell me how long it takes to get 485 filing receipt? Who gets it ,you or the lawyer? What information should a responsible lawyer pass to you after 485 is filed?
Please let me know. It would be good information for everyone.
The thread "June 1st filers" has the responses to your question.
Blog Feeds
12-18 09:50 AM
We like to share that the H1B cap is extremely close to being reached. The count as of December 15, 2009 is 64,200. This is 1300 cases more than the count from December 11th. This count is very close to the total cap of 65,000 which is actually somewhat reduced by numbers allocated under trade agreements. We continue to watch this very closely, and will provide updates until the FY 2010 cap is reached.
We suggest to act quickly to avoid last minute embarrassment as H-1B Cap may soon be cease to exist.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/12/h1b_cap_updates_64200_as_of_de.html)
We suggest to act quickly to avoid last minute embarrassment as H-1B Cap may soon be cease to exist.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/12/h1b_cap_updates_64200_as_of_de.html)
No comments:
Post a Comment