mabuhay
12-29 09:03 PM
My friend and I, filed our respective H1B extension in June 2007. We were both expecting only a 1-year extension since our I-140s have been pending at Nebraska SC since December 2006. He received his H1B extension approval (3 years) in October and I received mine first week of December. Despite both I-140s pending, we both got 3-year extension! We are both very happy because the ;)approval saved us a lot of money. Both of us filed I-485 in July.
wallpaper Best quotes from SRK: Wish him
s416504
08-29 12:30 PM
Here is the New Poll. I hope will give good analysis
mytv
08-16 02:09 PM
please do reply .I am waiting.
2011 happy birthday wallpaper with
kum31
10-01 09:53 PM
hi ,
Here is my situation.
(employer) -> (middle vendor ) -> prime vendor -> (End client ).
I am working to a client in california in the above mentioned order. After 1 year we got rid of middle vendor and prime vendor is working with my employer directly . Now middle vendor is threatning me that he can sue me for breaking the line of contract .
i dont understand ho can even its possible as i never signed any document with middle vendor and he is not even my employer . He is just acting as middle layer by showing prime vendor that i am his employee which is wrong. now we removed him from line of contract and he is saying that he will sue all of us for doing this.
is there any way that he can even do this ?
- Thanks in advance.
Here is my situation.
(employer) -> (middle vendor ) -> prime vendor -> (End client ).
I am working to a client in california in the above mentioned order. After 1 year we got rid of middle vendor and prime vendor is working with my employer directly . Now middle vendor is threatning me that he can sue me for breaking the line of contract .
i dont understand ho can even its possible as i never signed any document with middle vendor and he is not even my employer . He is just acting as middle layer by showing prime vendor that i am his employee which is wrong. now we removed him from line of contract and he is saying that he will sue all of us for doing this.
is there any way that he can even do this ?
- Thanks in advance.
more...
Blog Feeds
10-15 06:30 PM
[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
MatsP
June 1st, 2006, 09:06 AM
Telling other people what lenses to buy (or not to buy) is often hard, for several reasons:
- You probably have a better idea what you want than I do.
- Before you posted here, you probably have made your mind up somewhat.
- My personal preference doesn't really match yours.
- etc, etc.
That's never stopped me from trying to tell people what to do, tho'! ;-)
Now, what lens you should buy depends VERY MUCH on what you want it to do. A 70-300 will be an "OK" lens, it's a budget version - but as you say, it's a lot of money to you, and telling you that you'd get a much better lens if you spend 3x or 5x the money will not really solve a problem.
The things you should consider, however, is if it's going to be good enough for the things you mention:
- Landscapes - a 70-300 lens is probably too long most of the time - your 18-55 is probably a better landscape lens.
- Portrait - Yes, certainly. It's a bit too small an aperture to be a GOOD portrait lens - you want something around f2.0-2.8 - but unless you buy a SPECIFIC lens for portraits, you'd probably not going to get there for anything but A LOT of money.
- Macro . The close-up distance is 5'/1.5m. Depending on the size of insects/flowers and type of photos you want to take, this may be fine or not close enough. However, it's pretty easy to simulate this in the shop, using for instance a coin some such instead of the flower/insect. So if you think that the smallest flower you'd ever want to get a real close-up of is the size of a quarter, lay a quarter on the floor, and try to take a picture of it with the 70-300 lens... Do you get close enough to fill most of the frame, or does it look like a bit lonely with lots of space around it? Can you accept it? Obviously, most insects are slightly smaller than a quarter - except for butterfly's.
There aren't many other options to replace the 70-300, that are reasonably low cost. I'm sure you could find some sigma or other non-Nikon brand lens that is less expensive and do roughly the same, with approximately the same result and the added risk that it's not quite as good at working together with the Nikon camera - at least if it's a Nikon camera and lens you can complain to ONE place and hopefully getting it fixed, rather than being stuck between two companies that neither will take responsibility for your equipment not working... [Although Sigma is more likely to fix a non-compatibility problem than Nikon, of course].
I just noticed that Nikon actually has three different lenses of roughly the same range, a 75-300/4.5-5.6, 70-300 4.0-5.6D ED and 70-300 4.0-5.6G - the latter is a lot cheaper and specifically designed for digital SLR (using smaller lens-elements since the sensor is smaller than the original 35mm film). Not sure if there's much optical different between them. ED should be slightly better optically (and you'd hope so for more than double the price!).
There are a few things that come to mind:
1. If you are SERIOUS about macro photography, you probably want to get a proper macro lens - they get MUCH closer to the subject. There's a Sigma 50/2.8 that costs about $300 which will be a good starting point. A poor mans version is "macro filters", which is basically a screw on lens that goes on the front of the filter screw of your usual lens. They are not quite as good optically, but at least allows you to get close enough to get the subject. The macro lens would also be good as a portrait lens, if you want to get a bigger aperture for that.
2. If you really want to do "big" landscapes, you may need some more wide-angle than the 18-55 gives you. That's obviously not NECESSARY, but for some scenery, it's hard to get far enough away from the subject with a longer lens. Unfortunately, there's really no substitute for dollars here, you'll have to pay for it or not get it, so no easy solution. A Sigma 12-24mm is $689, and that's obviously a lot of money... [Yes, you can get screw on wide-angle lenses too, but if the close-up ones are OK, these aren't - making wide-angle lenses is HARD - magnifying glasses aren't too difficult to make!]
3. You'll almost certainly need a tripod - both for landscapes and macro photography.
Finally: Whilst it's good to consider the purchase, waiting TOO long will make you miss oppurtunities of using the equipment.
Best of luck, and please feel free to ask further questions...
--
Mats
- You probably have a better idea what you want than I do.
- Before you posted here, you probably have made your mind up somewhat.
- My personal preference doesn't really match yours.
- etc, etc.
That's never stopped me from trying to tell people what to do, tho'! ;-)
Now, what lens you should buy depends VERY MUCH on what you want it to do. A 70-300 will be an "OK" lens, it's a budget version - but as you say, it's a lot of money to you, and telling you that you'd get a much better lens if you spend 3x or 5x the money will not really solve a problem.
The things you should consider, however, is if it's going to be good enough for the things you mention:
- Landscapes - a 70-300 lens is probably too long most of the time - your 18-55 is probably a better landscape lens.
- Portrait - Yes, certainly. It's a bit too small an aperture to be a GOOD portrait lens - you want something around f2.0-2.8 - but unless you buy a SPECIFIC lens for portraits, you'd probably not going to get there for anything but A LOT of money.
- Macro . The close-up distance is 5'/1.5m. Depending on the size of insects/flowers and type of photos you want to take, this may be fine or not close enough. However, it's pretty easy to simulate this in the shop, using for instance a coin some such instead of the flower/insect. So if you think that the smallest flower you'd ever want to get a real close-up of is the size of a quarter, lay a quarter on the floor, and try to take a picture of it with the 70-300 lens... Do you get close enough to fill most of the frame, or does it look like a bit lonely with lots of space around it? Can you accept it? Obviously, most insects are slightly smaller than a quarter - except for butterfly's.
There aren't many other options to replace the 70-300, that are reasonably low cost. I'm sure you could find some sigma or other non-Nikon brand lens that is less expensive and do roughly the same, with approximately the same result and the added risk that it's not quite as good at working together with the Nikon camera - at least if it's a Nikon camera and lens you can complain to ONE place and hopefully getting it fixed, rather than being stuck between two companies that neither will take responsibility for your equipment not working... [Although Sigma is more likely to fix a non-compatibility problem than Nikon, of course].
I just noticed that Nikon actually has three different lenses of roughly the same range, a 75-300/4.5-5.6, 70-300 4.0-5.6D ED and 70-300 4.0-5.6G - the latter is a lot cheaper and specifically designed for digital SLR (using smaller lens-elements since the sensor is smaller than the original 35mm film). Not sure if there's much optical different between them. ED should be slightly better optically (and you'd hope so for more than double the price!).
There are a few things that come to mind:
1. If you are SERIOUS about macro photography, you probably want to get a proper macro lens - they get MUCH closer to the subject. There's a Sigma 50/2.8 that costs about $300 which will be a good starting point. A poor mans version is "macro filters", which is basically a screw on lens that goes on the front of the filter screw of your usual lens. They are not quite as good optically, but at least allows you to get close enough to get the subject. The macro lens would also be good as a portrait lens, if you want to get a bigger aperture for that.
2. If you really want to do "big" landscapes, you may need some more wide-angle than the 18-55 gives you. That's obviously not NECESSARY, but for some scenery, it's hard to get far enough away from the subject with a longer lens. Unfortunately, there's really no substitute for dollars here, you'll have to pay for it or not get it, so no easy solution. A Sigma 12-24mm is $689, and that's obviously a lot of money... [Yes, you can get screw on wide-angle lenses too, but if the close-up ones are OK, these aren't - making wide-angle lenses is HARD - magnifying glasses aren't too difficult to make!]
3. You'll almost certainly need a tripod - both for landscapes and macro photography.
Finally: Whilst it's good to consider the purchase, waiting TOO long will make you miss oppurtunities of using the equipment.
Best of luck, and please feel free to ask further questions...
--
Mats
more...
.gif "hair happy birthday wallpaper with happy birthday wallpaper with quotes.")
smartboy75
09-29 03:17 PM
Looks like an unique situation...no reply from anybody...
2010 Happy Birthday Live Wallpaper;
shri22
11-13 09:40 PM
Hi All,
Can you please tell me, when following was announced? Is this a new rule ?
VISA CONVERSATION NOT POSSIBLE FROM H4->H1 or from F1=> H1
I have appointment for Jan12 in TIJUANA , I took this appointment Oct 19th
I worked almost more than 1 year in USA with H1 status but never stamped on my passport.
Thanks
Shri
Can you please tell me, when following was announced? Is this a new rule ?
VISA CONVERSATION NOT POSSIBLE FROM H4->H1 or from F1=> H1
I have appointment for Jan12 in TIJUANA , I took this appointment Oct 19th
I worked almost more than 1 year in USA with H1 status but never stamped on my passport.
Thanks
Shri
more...
bsbawa10
08-03 12:27 PM
Chandu: I disagree with you. I think nobody complained on the website itself. People were unhappy with what it showed. The case status is incomplete and very abstract. I do not think anybody cared about navigation or buttons. Besides, it really they listened to the complaints, they would have fixed many more things before this thing. This would have been the last piece to do especially if they are having lack of workforce.
hair happy birthday wallpaper
eeezzz
08-28 10:12 AM
Ron sent an inquiry and here is the answer he got
Yes I probably should have said Worldwide Employment Third. My primary concern at this point is with the China E3 cut-off date which has an extremely large amount of demand.
Ron also says
He definitely referred to China E3, not India. There has been a huge build up of Chinese E3 cases over the past few years. There has been an even larger buildup of Indian E3 over the years, but that is a given.
Visa Bulletin says
...Then with the start of the new fiscal year in October the cut-off dates would have returned to those which had applied during June. However, continued heavy demand in those categories may require the establishment of cut-off dates which are earlier than those which had applied in June....
So I predict the EB3 RoW Oct bulletin will be what it was on June Bulletin but EB3 China and India will not be the same as June bulletin.
Yes I probably should have said Worldwide Employment Third. My primary concern at this point is with the China E3 cut-off date which has an extremely large amount of demand.
Ron also says
He definitely referred to China E3, not India. There has been a huge build up of Chinese E3 cases over the past few years. There has been an even larger buildup of Indian E3 over the years, but that is a given.
Visa Bulletin says
...Then with the start of the new fiscal year in October the cut-off dates would have returned to those which had applied during June. However, continued heavy demand in those categories may require the establishment of cut-off dates which are earlier than those which had applied in June....
So I predict the EB3 RoW Oct bulletin will be what it was on June Bulletin but EB3 China and India will not be the same as June bulletin.
more...
Iamthejuggler
02-09 04:09 AM
Holy crap that was close. Congrats folks. I'm pleased as punch!
hot happy birthday wallpaper with quotes. Wallpaper - Lil Quotes, A Kiss
AK_GC
07-22 02:42 PM
Or can we work on EAD and let the H1B lapse. The employer is the same. Thanks for the information!
more...
house happy birthday wallpaper with quotes. happy birthday wallpaper
GCScrewed
11-13 03:07 PM
How come they have not posted the demand data for the Dec. bulliten? We need to make sure they post the information to prevent them from moving the date in consistent with their policy. Someone raised the question related to EB3 Mexco... one year vs. the rest 1 or 2 weeks. Mexico should have the slowest movement as its demand is very high based on the Nov. demand data. In addition, Mexico must have a lot of cases in the field office as they can't even predict its movement as indicated in the Dec. bulliten.
Bottom line... we need to closely monitor all the numbers... ideally reconcile them. Otherwise, their imcompetency and unethical behavior will mess up the bulliten again. :rolleyes:
Bottom line... we need to closely monitor all the numbers... ideally reconcile them. Otherwise, their imcompetency and unethical behavior will mess up the bulliten again. :rolleyes:
tattoo happy birthday wallpaper with quotes. happy birthday wallpaper
steffit
June 16th, 2006, 10:28 AM
Hi Antonio,
Great stuff!!!
I love no. 2, 3 and 4.
2 for the dynamic composition, 3 just cracked me up because the percussion instruments are so domineering and 4 seems pure concentration. 2 and 4 could maybe be cropped slightly, but that's very minor.
Cheers,
Stefanie
Great stuff!!!
I love no. 2, 3 and 4.
2 for the dynamic composition, 3 just cracked me up because the percussion instruments are so domineering and 4 seems pure concentration. 2 and 4 could maybe be cropped slightly, but that's very minor.
Cheers,
Stefanie
more...
pictures hair happy birthday wallpaper with happy birthday wallpaper with quotes.
SDdesi
06-02 09:15 PM
This is a disaster for all FDBL clients. Wonder how this will affect people who have a I140 approved and 485 pending?
dresses Happy Birthday Comments
SeanDell
05-29 05:26 PM
Thanks for your reply Morchu. I want to have some further clarification here:
1. Yes. Most countries need 6 months validity on passport from the date of entry. Some countries are exempt from this rule.
The US Embassy has this pre-requiste of 6 months validity when applying for US Visa but I have no knowledge of any document mentioning this 6 months validity requirement at the US POE. Can you please point me to some source?
2. Usually you keep the same I94.
3. Not necessarily. But be prepared to answer questions. If you are unable to prove your intention to be permanently residing in US, upon US GC, that can be an issue.
How to prove this intention? Aren't proper H1B Documents, Employer Letter/ working in US enough to prove this intention? My question is as I will be using H1B documents to renter US at POE (not I-485 related documents i.e. Advance Parole), can that still be a problem?
Basically you have to claim that you have proper intentions now, and at the time of applications of canadian PR and US GC. Also you have to claim that you plan to reside in US permanently if you receive US GC.
1. Yes. Most countries need 6 months validity on passport from the date of entry. Some countries are exempt from this rule.
The US Embassy has this pre-requiste of 6 months validity when applying for US Visa but I have no knowledge of any document mentioning this 6 months validity requirement at the US POE. Can you please point me to some source?
2. Usually you keep the same I94.
3. Not necessarily. But be prepared to answer questions. If you are unable to prove your intention to be permanently residing in US, upon US GC, that can be an issue.
How to prove this intention? Aren't proper H1B Documents, Employer Letter/ working in US enough to prove this intention? My question is as I will be using H1B documents to renter US at POE (not I-485 related documents i.e. Advance Parole), can that still be a problem?
Basically you have to claim that you have proper intentions now, and at the time of applications of canadian PR and US GC. Also you have to claim that you plan to reside in US permanently if you receive US GC.
more...
makeup wallpaper happy irthday
cool_guy_onnet1
02-12 08:41 AM
No FP Yet, July 22nd Filer. I tried CSR # few times and finally got hold of someone who was kind -enough.
According to her, there are LOT OF PEOPLE in the same boat and she recieves this phone call more than any other queries.
She said, all she can do is to request Service center for FP status but here is the glitch, Request from CSR to Service Center takes 90 days to process and count another 90 days for the response to be read by CSR and issue a new FP.
Again, she kept saying that these are just numbers from top of her head and nothing is written on stone.
Hope this helps-
According to her, there are LOT OF PEOPLE in the same boat and she recieves this phone call more than any other queries.
She said, all she can do is to request Service center for FP status but here is the glitch, Request from CSR to Service Center takes 90 days to process and count another 90 days for the response to be read by CSR and issue a new FP.
Again, she kept saying that these are just numbers from top of her head and nothing is written on stone.
Hope this helps-
girlfriend Happy Birthday Comments
GCNeophyte
09-17 01:47 PM
Buddy - on forum everyone will answer you what he thinks ths best and this is important thing for you. you should ask your lawyer.
short answer - i had been in your situation and what my laywer told me is this
doesnt matter EAD (expired or not) H1(valid or not), if you have valid AP and your 485 is pending you can enter USA on it. Date on I94 will indeed be expiry date of AP.
Secondly, you are all good to continue working on your H1b even after entering through AP.
this is just what my laywer said. you will hear more things but i would suggest again that check with your lawyer.
Good Luck !!
bank_king2003 was right on. you don't need EAD or H1, AP was issued on your pending I485, POE won't care but they will still verify (it typically takes around 60 - 90 mins), you need to wait Patiently in IO supervisor office @POE. My personal advice is don't act smart with IO in POE and give them excuses like i have connection flight to catch etc.,
short answer - i had been in your situation and what my laywer told me is this
doesnt matter EAD (expired or not) H1(valid or not), if you have valid AP and your 485 is pending you can enter USA on it. Date on I94 will indeed be expiry date of AP.
Secondly, you are all good to continue working on your H1b even after entering through AP.
this is just what my laywer said. you will hear more things but i would suggest again that check with your lawyer.
Good Luck !!
bank_king2003 was right on. you don't need EAD or H1, AP was issued on your pending I485, POE won't care but they will still verify (it typically takes around 60 - 90 mins), you need to wait Patiently in IO supervisor office @POE. My personal advice is don't act smart with IO in POE and give them excuses like i have connection flight to catch etc.,
hairstyles 2011 happy birthday wallpaper
Steven-T
February 23rd, 2004, 07:33 AM
So close, So close
Scott, here's goes the B&H 10 rated used 10D and 1Ds again. Why B&H have to sell this at such a premium of $6,030 above that of Adorama's $5,200? Are they supposed to be married couples, or, at least civil union?
Steven
Scott, here's goes the B&H 10 rated used 10D and 1Ds again. Why B&H have to sell this at such a premium of $6,030 above that of Adorama's $5,200? Are they supposed to be married couples, or, at least civil union?
Steven
ras
10-26 01:32 PM
Get images of checks cashed by USCIS, your receipt numbers are stamped on the back side of the checks. Use these RNs to call up USCIS and change your address.
Filing out AR-11 does not guarantee that USCIS will correspond to you on the new address.
I did get the cashed checks printouts and also changed the address in USCIS couple days back. The questions are:
- Assuming that USCIS has already sent the reciepts/EAD to my previous address and I have a redirection at USPost office to my new address.
Will they be redirected to my new address? Or is there is a policy on USCIS reciept mails that the mails from USCIS can't be redirected to a new address but need to be returned back unless the new address is updated in USCIS?
I dont think this should be the case. But just thought to make sure my thoughts are correct. My dilemma is that it's over 15days my checks cashed and I haven't recieved the reciepts yet.
Filing out AR-11 does not guarantee that USCIS will correspond to you on the new address.
I did get the cashed checks printouts and also changed the address in USCIS couple days back. The questions are:
- Assuming that USCIS has already sent the reciepts/EAD to my previous address and I have a redirection at USPost office to my new address.
Will they be redirected to my new address? Or is there is a policy on USCIS reciept mails that the mails from USCIS can't be redirected to a new address but need to be returned back unless the new address is updated in USCIS?
I dont think this should be the case. But just thought to make sure my thoughts are correct. My dilemma is that it's over 15days my checks cashed and I haven't recieved the reciepts yet.
pady
08-28 11:45 AM
Hi, I got the Email response for my SR as follows. Not sure if this is a Standard Responde. throw your inputs.
==================================
The status of this service request is:
Your case is currently under review. You should receive a decision or notice of other action within 60 days of the date of this letter.
If you have any further questions, please call the National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283.
==================================
The status of this service request is:
Your case is currently under review. You should receive a decision or notice of other action within 60 days of the date of this letter.
If you have any further questions, please call the National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283.
No comments:
Post a Comment