delhirocks
12-18 06:45 PM
When I took a cruise last year (Carnival) one of my stops was Cozumel. We were there for around 12 hours. We did not have a mexican visa, did not have to go through Mexican immigration.
I spoke to Mexican consulate official, and he conforimed that I do not need a Mexican visa (as long as I have a valid American non-b1/b2 visa) if I am staying in Mexico for less than 72 hours. Carnival also did not require a visa.
They do that for some other stops.
I spoke to Mexican consulate official, and he conforimed that I do not need a Mexican visa (as long as I have a valid American non-b1/b2 visa) if I am staying in Mexico for less than 72 hours. Carnival also did not require a visa.
They do that for some other stops.
wallpaper tribal designs wings.
nomorelogins
03-25 04:09 PM
just remember to keep off any bread that has poppy seeds in it
:eek:
:eek:
anirudh74
08-08 09:19 PM
I am sorry to say , but I have not seen any results from IV as well , they seem to be in the same boat as us, wait , wait and wait more, things will take care of themselves over time, seems to be the strategy.
2011 magazine body tattoos: Tribal
howzatt
08-15 11:34 AM
What I am looking for is how do they physically transfer the application? I am afraid of dealing with another incompetent organization such as USPS. Also, what type of processing delays should I expect?
How recent were the guidelines that I-485 be sent to the same center as I-140? Were these guidelines applicable on July 2nd.
I do not know about the guidelines but these FAQs were released a few days ago(definitely after July 2nd).
Your question about how do they physically transfer applications is just very stupid. Just think about it. Your lawyer made a mistake and you want to blame USPS or USCIS for it? Nobody can tell you for sure their method of transferring applications. I dont think you have any other option but to wait.
How recent were the guidelines that I-485 be sent to the same center as I-140? Were these guidelines applicable on July 2nd.
I do not know about the guidelines but these FAQs were released a few days ago(definitely after July 2nd).
Your question about how do they physically transfer applications is just very stupid. Just think about it. Your lawyer made a mistake and you want to blame USPS or USCIS for it? Nobody can tell you for sure their method of transferring applications. I dont think you have any other option but to wait.
more...
bitzbytz
07-30 03:43 PM
Within 4-10 days, after the USCIS sent the FP notice. :mad:
but you need to improve
but you need to improve
immi2006
08-21 09:40 PM
All the fresh H1's wait little longer, while older h1 case gets adjucated. Presently, a guy who filed in 1999, 2000, 2001 is clue less, on what is happening, a guy who filed in 2005/6 had a 140 already, is this fair ?
So to make it more evenly distributed, delay the process by 2/3 years for every new h1 applicant, and also insisting on 2 years of tax filing , will ensure, the older applications gets processed in the meanwhile, and also help the newer applications get streamlined.
Hope u got the point...
So to make it more evenly distributed, delay the process by 2/3 years for every new h1 applicant, and also insisting on 2 years of tax filing , will ensure, the older applications gets processed in the meanwhile, and also help the newer applications get streamlined.
Hope u got the point...
more...
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
2010 Cool Angel Wing Tattoo Design
gc2
09-23 06:45 AM
bump...
more...
psczd4
08-10 01:20 AM
how about applying for a tourist visa for that time period?
hair tribal designs in it,
nikh
12-21 11:18 AM
walking_dude and Munnabhai,
Its not fair to make such comments on her. Its very unprofessional from ourside to act like that even before a help denied by her. I think IV needs everyones help and input. Anyone including her might be of great help if they are convinced with our cause and willing to help. And, they deserve a respect.
By the way, i am neither a supporter of indian govt nor belong to a minority community.
nikh
Its not fair to make such comments on her. Its very unprofessional from ourside to act like that even before a help denied by her. I think IV needs everyones help and input. Anyone including her might be of great help if they are convinced with our cause and willing to help. And, they deserve a respect.
By the way, i am neither a supporter of indian govt nor belong to a minority community.
nikh
more...
raghuram
11-10 12:46 PM
one of my friends took insurance for his parents from
http://.org/page3.html
covers PRE-EXISITING Conditions as well
's plan is from AIG.
Therefore be very careful, given AIG's condition recently. Even today, government gave $40 billion for AIG to survive. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081110/ap_on_bi_ge/aig_bailout
Please note that it is completely misleading when advertises that it is on a non-profit basis. It is like saying Ford Mustang car is sponsored by Ford Foundation, a non-profit organization. Just because Ford owners have a charity organization on the side does not make the entire Ford Motor Company non-profit organization. The same way existance of India Network Foundation does not make 's entire insurance business non-profit.
Find out the complete details and reality of KV Rao Insurance or India Network Insurance at http://visitorsinsuranceusa.wordpress.com/ It is shocking, disturbing but really true.
http://.org/page3.html
covers PRE-EXISITING Conditions as well
's plan is from AIG.
Therefore be very careful, given AIG's condition recently. Even today, government gave $40 billion for AIG to survive. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081110/ap_on_bi_ge/aig_bailout
Please note that it is completely misleading when advertises that it is on a non-profit basis. It is like saying Ford Mustang car is sponsored by Ford Foundation, a non-profit organization. Just because Ford owners have a charity organization on the side does not make the entire Ford Motor Company non-profit organization. The same way existance of India Network Foundation does not make 's entire insurance business non-profit.
Find out the complete details and reality of KV Rao Insurance or India Network Insurance at http://visitorsinsuranceusa.wordpress.com/ It is shocking, disturbing but really true.
hot tribal designs wings. tatto
conundrum
05-25 07:44 AM
It seems the lines to the senator's (Kennedy's) immigration council/staffer is busy, asked me to call them after 5 mins... second time that is happening!!! Very fustrating..........
more...
house tribal, whiskas, wings
.JPG "tribal designs wings.")
adGurkha
01-17 10:48 AM
Well its that time of the year..., Does anyone know if I can add my spouse as dependent and get the tax break. Is there any website where I can get the information on filing procedures with H1 and H4?
tattoo Tribal tattoos hold the mantel
saileshdude
09-07 10:49 AM
Yes� It�s me Sreedhar. According to the conversation with my cousin, what ever I posted here is true. I am not sure what IO said is going to be happen or not. My cousin and myself working in the same office. I will keep update what ever happen to his case.
-Sree
Thanks for sharing this. I find it hard to believe what IO said (not you) . I think IO must have meant it will be current for PD 2003/2004 people. And using unused numbers from past is more of legislative thing that I am not sure if USCIS has the power to do it.
-Sree
Thanks for sharing this. I find it hard to believe what IO said (not you) . I think IO must have meant it will be current for PD 2003/2004 people. And using unused numbers from past is more of legislative thing that I am not sure if USCIS has the power to do it.
more...
pictures Tribal Wing Tattoo by
pd_recapturing
03-07 08:46 PM
I have a quick question on salary issue with 485. My EB2 I-140 states that my yearly salary 87k per annum. It got approved last year. I realized that my w-2 only reflects 64k for last year. I did not work for 2 months because of some personal reason. Is this less salary going to affect my 485 application? I thougt, GC is for future jobs so its okay. Can somebody please clarify this ?
dresses tribal tattoos full sleeve
krithi
03-11 02:48 PM
u need nothing, AP and Passport are enough
more...
makeup This design used to be part of
joydiptac
05-25 02:01 PM
Apply for AP - 350 bucks. If you application is valid - you will get it.
Do this before trying to figure out using more money if your application is active. That may result in raising alarms and ultimately may be bad for your application. No one can penalize you for applying for EAD AP.
Once your husband is back here ask him to reapply for EAD and you send in your application too. If that comes you are all set no need to refile H1B but keep it just in case because of your special case.
All the best!
Do this before trying to figure out using more money if your application is active. That may result in raising alarms and ultimately may be bad for your application. No one can penalize you for applying for EAD AP.
Once your husband is back here ask him to reapply for EAD and you send in your application too. If that comes you are all set no need to refile H1B but keep it just in case because of your special case.
All the best!
girlfriend tribal wings
LostInGCProcess
01-08 12:54 PM
LostInGCProcess, Since you used AP to enter do you now loose your H1 status? just curious to know.
I read in other blogs that your status would be AOS if you enter using AP and not H1-B. If you need to retain H1-b then your I-94 needs to be stamped as that at the port of entry.
Any comments......
No. One can continue to work on H1 if its the same company.
I read in other blogs that your status would be AOS if you enter using AP and not H1-B. If you need to retain H1-b then your I-94 needs to be stamped as that at the port of entry.
Any comments......
No. One can continue to work on H1 if its the same company.
hairstyles butterfly design tattoos. cool
wandmaker
04-04 01:52 PM
wandmaker, I understand that the 485 as it is filed now stands to be denied. But if I can get back on h4 and withdraw current 485 and refile new 485, then why would there be a issue? As I understand, 485 is to be filed while in valid status. It is not 'until' but 'while'.
Also, do you think Consular processing might be a better option instead of 485?
Your understanding is correct, you can refile 485 after you make a lawful entry using H4 and you will have check YES to the question "Have you ever before applied for permanent resident status in the US?" and need to write details..... Get opinions from more than one attorney - thats my 2 cents.
Also, do you think Consular processing might be a better option instead of 485?
Your understanding is correct, you can refile 485 after you make a lawful entry using H4 and you will have check YES to the question "Have you ever before applied for permanent resident status in the US?" and need to write details..... Get opinions from more than one attorney - thats my 2 cents.
Jerrome
11-30 11:36 AM
What is your PD and nationality. without this information nobody can even GUESS how it happened.
hkusumadi
03-27 12:00 PM
I received my Labor Certificate with PERM process. Right now, I can't continue the process for I-140 and I-485. My lawyer just found out that my degree is Master of Business Administration, while the Labor Certificate is based on Master of Science. My current position is Software Engineer.
My questions are:
1. Is there a problem of having an MBA and working as a software engineer? As my understanding, MBA and MSc are the same level.
2. Can I continue the case since I already got my Labor Certificate?
I appreciate your feedback. Thank you.
My questions are:
1. Is there a problem of having an MBA and working as a software engineer? As my understanding, MBA and MSc are the same level.
2. Can I continue the case since I already got my Labor Certificate?
I appreciate your feedback. Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment