alterego
11-01 07:30 PM
Firstly to comment on the story, What the heck are they to do with a shrinking and aging population!
Anyway this just speaks to issues globally.
If we believe we are in a global economy...........and I do. Then these are relevant.
For Instance, an IT pro in India makes a lot of money compared to professionals in other fields there. Can anyone argue that this is not due to Globalization? In some areas and fields this situation will work in reverse.
We stand to gain by observing trends in other developed economies since it may be a harbinger of things to come here.
Protectionism in the rich world is growing, that is a fact and was only to be expected. We are reaching an inflection point here where if capitalists here want to continue this trend they have to also accept some unpalatable developments. This might include higher tax rates on property, investments and returns, higher risk threshold on overseas portfolio investment.........not just economic risk either (political and other risks are much higher in the developing world..........................for the naysayer Desi just think about the left successfully blocking the nuclear deal and Indira Gandhi's nationalization program). These will emerge in a democracy. It matters little what the position is on these issues by the elites or the 2 dominant parties in the US. A 3rd force will likely emerge if needed. Already we are seeing protectionists like Lou Dobbs, John Edwards gaining traction with their views. This article about the situation in the UK shows us the same there.
Change sometimes needs to be managed. I feel this is one of those situations. Immigration is good for the rich world. Especially our kind, highly skilled and entrepreneurial and linked to hyper growth economies of the future.
Lets hope our voice gets heard in after all this land of immigrants.
Anyway this just speaks to issues globally.
If we believe we are in a global economy...........and I do. Then these are relevant.
For Instance, an IT pro in India makes a lot of money compared to professionals in other fields there. Can anyone argue that this is not due to Globalization? In some areas and fields this situation will work in reverse.
We stand to gain by observing trends in other developed economies since it may be a harbinger of things to come here.
Protectionism in the rich world is growing, that is a fact and was only to be expected. We are reaching an inflection point here where if capitalists here want to continue this trend they have to also accept some unpalatable developments. This might include higher tax rates on property, investments and returns, higher risk threshold on overseas portfolio investment.........not just economic risk either (political and other risks are much higher in the developing world..........................for the naysayer Desi just think about the left successfully blocking the nuclear deal and Indira Gandhi's nationalization program). These will emerge in a democracy. It matters little what the position is on these issues by the elites or the 2 dominant parties in the US. A 3rd force will likely emerge if needed. Already we are seeing protectionists like Lou Dobbs, John Edwards gaining traction with their views. This article about the situation in the UK shows us the same there.
Change sometimes needs to be managed. I feel this is one of those situations. Immigration is good for the rich world. Especially our kind, highly skilled and entrepreneurial and linked to hyper growth economies of the future.
Lets hope our voice gets heard in after all this land of immigrants.
wallpaper world war 1 propaganda posters
nagrajram
12-17 11:23 AM
Now the biggest hurdle of Apr 30, 2001 is crossed. I am sure that not many people has filed between Sep 2001 and February 2002. Also if you look into PD for China and Phillipines, the dates moved very fast after June 2001. Lot of people applied in late 2002 and early 2003. My guess would be that it will take about 3 to 4 years to clear all the backlogs of 2003. For 2004 it may be over 5 years.
guru76
10-05 06:34 PM
I was once asked by an immigration officer in India why I was coming to India. I have an Indian passport. This was in Hyderabad.
So its not just US/Canada.
So its not just US/Canada.
2011 world war 1 propaganda posters uk. World+war+1+posters+uk
rock
03-14 06:01 PM
Is there any way we can track that I-140 is either revoked or not by the old employer?
more...
jay75
08-04 12:55 PM
EB3 I - I140 pending , applied on 8/9/2007...sorry for the typo from the subject
kalinga_sena
09-01 05:43 PM
Here you go:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection - Contacts (http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/contacts/cmcs/)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection - Contacts (http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/contacts/cmcs/)
more...
chanduv23
05-27 11:50 AM
I would like to share my I485 experience.
1.Brief History and Denial reason.
Did I485 interview at local office in Jan 2009.
Got Denial notice stating that I485 filed when dates are not current.
This is not true. Filed I 485 in 2007 July Fiasco.
Immigration office recived application in AUg 2007, well before deadline Aug 17'2007.
Got I485 receipt in October.
it was denied due to clear error.
2. Filed Service MTR with out filing Fee ( as this is service error)
Did not get any communication for 3 months.
In between took info pass couple of times and it did not help.
Wrote letter seeking help of senator explaining situation.
Immediately got reply that case was reopened and I797 Notice of action was mailed to me stating that case was reopend and finger prints expired.
Did finger printing in May.
Since dates are not current, I am not expecting any approval.
AT least I am happy that. case was reopened.
I heard that some 485 was denied ( 2007 July Fiasco) due to same error. I posted this experience as it would be helpfull for any other denials cases.
.
Good thing. Please let me know if you are interested in helping IV in a new campaign addressing issues similar to this? Send me a private message with your contact info and I will contact you.
1.Brief History and Denial reason.
Did I485 interview at local office in Jan 2009.
Got Denial notice stating that I485 filed when dates are not current.
This is not true. Filed I 485 in 2007 July Fiasco.
Immigration office recived application in AUg 2007, well before deadline Aug 17'2007.
Got I485 receipt in October.
it was denied due to clear error.
2. Filed Service MTR with out filing Fee ( as this is service error)
Did not get any communication for 3 months.
In between took info pass couple of times and it did not help.
Wrote letter seeking help of senator explaining situation.
Immediately got reply that case was reopened and I797 Notice of action was mailed to me stating that case was reopend and finger prints expired.
Did finger printing in May.
Since dates are not current, I am not expecting any approval.
AT least I am happy that. case was reopened.
I heard that some 485 was denied ( 2007 July Fiasco) due to same error. I posted this experience as it would be helpfull for any other denials cases.
.
Good thing. Please let me know if you are interested in helping IV in a new campaign addressing issues similar to this? Send me a private message with your contact info and I will contact you.
2010 world war 1 propaganda posters
yabadaba
06-25 06:40 AM
^^^^^
more...
optimystic
04-22 03:49 PM
I-485 could be from family based, EB1 and ROW categories. I dont all these became Unavailable on July 2nd. Also you are right, USCIS didnt reject applications even though they came in between July 2nd and 17th.
That particular date of July 11 at NSC is for EB I-485 !
That particular date of July 11 at NSC is for EB I-485 !
hair world war 1 propaganda posters
sky7
07-26 11:34 AM
hey njboy..thanks again for ur response.
Yes, i read about the I140 processing and EB3 goes first. But I already filed my I140 in June-06, can i still move that to PREMIUM PROCESSING? (I tried to find any rule/regulation on that...didn't see any). And how long does the PREMIUM Processing takes?
Looks like the average wait time at the Nebraska SC is 3-4 months, hmmm..should i spend that extra $1K? Maybe yes (if we are allowed to switch from regular to premium)...given the "efficiency" of the immigration processing in the US.
Thanks again
Sky
Yes, i read about the I140 processing and EB3 goes first. But I already filed my I140 in June-06, can i still move that to PREMIUM PROCESSING? (I tried to find any rule/regulation on that...didn't see any). And how long does the PREMIUM Processing takes?
Looks like the average wait time at the Nebraska SC is 3-4 months, hmmm..should i spend that extra $1K? Maybe yes (if we are allowed to switch from regular to premium)...given the "efficiency" of the immigration processing in the US.
Thanks again
Sky
more...
MeraNaamJoker
09-16 04:44 PM
Here is the scenario.
If 6 months has been completed after your I-485 is filed then you can port out your process. You can either file AC21 or not. But to work for another company you need EAD. Now here you have mentioned that you have been working for Company B. What is your status with Company B? I guess, H1B.
If the company B can file for an AC21 at the earliest, that is the best option you have with you.
Just in case, if your I-485 is less than 6 months, situation becomes little sticky. Though the law or rule does not say anything specific, USCIS has been little lenient with the lay off and other situations recently.
So once Company A gets winds up, you can claim the process by stating that the company went out of business. There are cases where this was approved recently. Earlier there were exemptions at all.
You all need the co-operation from Company A on this. If they report to USCIS that you guys never joined there or made the company lose money, then none of the process will not stand as per law.
I personally know a unique situation, even after the company reported against the employee, the USCIS issued Green Card.
It all depends on the knowledge of the Officer who takes the case. Basically it is roll of the dice.
Do not take chances. Do it in the legal way as much as possible.
Good Luck to all of you
If 6 months has been completed after your I-485 is filed then you can port out your process. You can either file AC21 or not. But to work for another company you need EAD. Now here you have mentioned that you have been working for Company B. What is your status with Company B? I guess, H1B.
If the company B can file for an AC21 at the earliest, that is the best option you have with you.
Just in case, if your I-485 is less than 6 months, situation becomes little sticky. Though the law or rule does not say anything specific, USCIS has been little lenient with the lay off and other situations recently.
So once Company A gets winds up, you can claim the process by stating that the company went out of business. There are cases where this was approved recently. Earlier there were exemptions at all.
You all need the co-operation from Company A on this. If they report to USCIS that you guys never joined there or made the company lose money, then none of the process will not stand as per law.
I personally know a unique situation, even after the company reported against the employee, the USCIS issued Green Card.
It all depends on the knowledge of the Officer who takes the case. Basically it is roll of the dice.
Do not take chances. Do it in the legal way as much as possible.
Good Luck to all of you
hot world war 1 propaganda posters uk. World+war+1+propaganda+
ashkam
12-03 04:12 PM
Does anyone knows if Person eligible for AC21 porting is eligible for unemployment benefit?
Refer to this post (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=234403&postcount=24) for a good answer.
Refer to this post (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=234403&postcount=24) for a good answer.
more...
house dresses world war 1 propaganda
samrat_bhargava_vihari
01-21 11:39 PM
Kirshana_2001,
Did you verified with Attorney? If they offer you permanent employment I think they should file your I-140, then only they can transfer H1. In that case if you get I-140 approval then move to the permanent employment else stick with your company. ( Think of EB2 and Priority date transfer also).
Best of Luck...
Did you verified with Attorney? If they offer you permanent employment I think they should file your I-140, then only they can transfer H1. In that case if you get I-140 approval then move to the permanent employment else stick with your company. ( Think of EB2 and Priority date transfer also).
Best of Luck...
tattoo world war 1 propaganda posters uk. World+war+1+propaganda+
![world war 1 propaganda posters uk. [Poster]](http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~pv/pv/courses/posters/images4/uniforms1.jpg "[Poster]")
Blog Feeds
09-18 10:20 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3L_Ufx_e_-K9DJHQr14QUvcPu6G-vHoR7se_7wnEYHhhi5wxw2XdYWlyPYVb_5ESLk8Hb4mnu76MX20OnX-Ly2NpqsMcamf_pLjliAQYyGCQ61un1KA4NeV4QOePK6OuBxrVEqrdVv8c/s320/Wilson+Liar.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3L_Ufx_e_-K9DJHQr14QUvcPu6G-vHoR7se_7wnEYHhhi5wxw2XdYWlyPYVb_5ESLk8Hb4mnu76MX20OnX-Ly2NpqsMcamf_pLjliAQYyGCQ61un1KA4NeV4QOePK6OuBxrVEqrdVv8c/s1600-h/Wilson+Liar.jpg)During President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, Congressman Joe Wilson (R. SC), shouted "LIAR!" when President Obama stated that the proposed health care plan would not cover "illegal aliens." Now, Joe Wilson said he should know this because he once was an immigration lawyer (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/09/rep-joe-wilson-speaks-to-rwv.html). Whether that meant immigration from or to South Carolina, I am not sure, but one thing is for sure, no one I know ever knew Joe Wilson the immigration lawyer. If by "immigration lawyer" Mr. Wilson meant that he once helped an immigrant get deported, I am not sure that really counts. But if "Joe the Immigration Lawyer" is like "Joe the Plumber," then maybe he thinks he really was one.
After all, an immigration lawyer would likely be able to understand what exactly the law means when it says that only citizens and permanent residents are covered under the Obama plan. What has caused Joe Wilson to react like this, besides a serious lack of self control, is the provision in the proposed legislation that eliminates the requirement of using the "SAVE" system to verify whether someone who is an immigrant, is legally in the United States. Use of this program has stopped very few undocumented immigrants from getting public benefits, but has stopped literally thousands of U.S. citizens, mostly poor, from obtaining benefits because of their lack of accessible proof of their citizenship.
Factcheck.org has presented a short article on Seven Falsehoods About Health Care (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/). One of those applies directly to this point:
False: Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered. One Republican congressman issued
a press release claiming that "5,600,000 Illegal Aliens May Be Covered Under Obamacare (http://steveking.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a294b300-19b9-b4b1-1296-659af869849a&Region_id=&Issue_id=)," and we�ve been peppered with queries about similar claims. They�re not true. In fact, the House bill (the only bill to be formally introduced in its entirety) specifically says that no federal money would be spent on giving illegal immigrants health coverage:
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 � NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
Also, under current law, those in the country illegally don�t qualify for federal health programs. Of interest: About half of illegal immigrants have health insurance now, according to the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center, which says those who lack insurance do so principally because their employers don�t offer it."Misleading GOP Health Care Claims" (http://factcheck.org/2009/07/misleading-gop-health-care-claims/) July 23 � by Brooks Jackson, Viveca Novak, Lori Robertson and Jess Henig.
I can certainly see both sides of the debate, and, frankly, neither side is being completely honest or clear. What is quite clear, is how immigration, and our broken immigration system, keeps coming up in the context of the debate of national agenda items, such as the health care debate.
Several weeks ago I blogged on the danger that the tone of the Health care debate (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/08/healthcare-debate-and-immigration.html)had for the coming immigration reform debate. Calling the President a Liar during his speech to a joint session to Congress is Exhibit A in what we have in store for the coming debate. If Joe Wilson the Immigration Lawyer can misrepresent the consequences of legislative language as straight forward as these two particular sections, we have to be prepared for the extraordinary misrepresentations of any positive aspects of an immigration reform bill. Whether it is "amnesty," "rewarding law breakers," "open borders," "Liars," or even "destroyers of American culture" we have to understand how to phrase and present the response. Without a doubt, the response from those of us who understand the need to balance immigration reform, with security concerns, and with economic growth has to be not only vocal, but focused. We, as Real Immigration Lawyers, must know the language of the proposed legislation, we must know the myths that are out there, and we need to be vocal in our response.
Next week, more than 40 talk radio hosts are descending on Capital Hill for the FAIR (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=846)Annual Scare the Crap Out of Congress Boondoggle. The outrageous claims of the downfall of America caused by illegal immigration, along with similarly nutty myths will be presented as facts. Actual real news organization will cite the Center for Immigration Studies as a legitimate source of information. We must be prepared to call into our local radio stations, whose hosts are in D.C. next week, and be prepared to present the facts of immigration. Not by sugar coating the problems that are caused by illegal immigration, but rather by pointing out which specific laws are broken (INA 212(a)(9) anyone?) and how having a comprehensive solution can actually fix the immigration pothole in the legislative superhighway. Immigration Lawyers it is time to Stand Up and be vocal and beat back the immigration myths (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?bc=27924).
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-8070452709764975137?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/liar-what-does-health-care-have-to-do.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3L_Ufx_e_-K9DJHQr14QUvcPu6G-vHoR7se_7wnEYHhhi5wxw2XdYWlyPYVb_5ESLk8Hb4mnu76MX20OnX-Ly2NpqsMcamf_pLjliAQYyGCQ61un1KA4NeV4QOePK6OuBxrVEqrdVv8c/s320/Wilson+Liar.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3L_Ufx_e_-K9DJHQr14QUvcPu6G-vHoR7se_7wnEYHhhi5wxw2XdYWlyPYVb_5ESLk8Hb4mnu76MX20OnX-Ly2NpqsMcamf_pLjliAQYyGCQ61un1KA4NeV4QOePK6OuBxrVEqrdVv8c/s1600-h/Wilson+Liar.jpg)During President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, Congressman Joe Wilson (R. SC), shouted "LIAR!" when President Obama stated that the proposed health care plan would not cover "illegal aliens." Now, Joe Wilson said he should know this because he once was an immigration lawyer (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/09/rep-joe-wilson-speaks-to-rwv.html). Whether that meant immigration from or to South Carolina, I am not sure, but one thing is for sure, no one I know ever knew Joe Wilson the immigration lawyer. If by "immigration lawyer" Mr. Wilson meant that he once helped an immigrant get deported, I am not sure that really counts. But if "Joe the Immigration Lawyer" is like "Joe the Plumber," then maybe he thinks he really was one.
After all, an immigration lawyer would likely be able to understand what exactly the law means when it says that only citizens and permanent residents are covered under the Obama plan. What has caused Joe Wilson to react like this, besides a serious lack of self control, is the provision in the proposed legislation that eliminates the requirement of using the "SAVE" system to verify whether someone who is an immigrant, is legally in the United States. Use of this program has stopped very few undocumented immigrants from getting public benefits, but has stopped literally thousands of U.S. citizens, mostly poor, from obtaining benefits because of their lack of accessible proof of their citizenship.
Factcheck.org has presented a short article on Seven Falsehoods About Health Care (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/). One of those applies directly to this point:
False: Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered. One Republican congressman issued
a press release claiming that "5,600,000 Illegal Aliens May Be Covered Under Obamacare (http://steveking.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a294b300-19b9-b4b1-1296-659af869849a&Region_id=&Issue_id=)," and we�ve been peppered with queries about similar claims. They�re not true. In fact, the House bill (the only bill to be formally introduced in its entirety) specifically says that no federal money would be spent on giving illegal immigrants health coverage:
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 � NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
Also, under current law, those in the country illegally don�t qualify for federal health programs. Of interest: About half of illegal immigrants have health insurance now, according to the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center, which says those who lack insurance do so principally because their employers don�t offer it."Misleading GOP Health Care Claims" (http://factcheck.org/2009/07/misleading-gop-health-care-claims/) July 23 � by Brooks Jackson, Viveca Novak, Lori Robertson and Jess Henig.
I can certainly see both sides of the debate, and, frankly, neither side is being completely honest or clear. What is quite clear, is how immigration, and our broken immigration system, keeps coming up in the context of the debate of national agenda items, such as the health care debate.
Several weeks ago I blogged on the danger that the tone of the Health care debate (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/08/healthcare-debate-and-immigration.html)had for the coming immigration reform debate. Calling the President a Liar during his speech to a joint session to Congress is Exhibit A in what we have in store for the coming debate. If Joe Wilson the Immigration Lawyer can misrepresent the consequences of legislative language as straight forward as these two particular sections, we have to be prepared for the extraordinary misrepresentations of any positive aspects of an immigration reform bill. Whether it is "amnesty," "rewarding law breakers," "open borders," "Liars," or even "destroyers of American culture" we have to understand how to phrase and present the response. Without a doubt, the response from those of us who understand the need to balance immigration reform, with security concerns, and with economic growth has to be not only vocal, but focused. We, as Real Immigration Lawyers, must know the language of the proposed legislation, we must know the myths that are out there, and we need to be vocal in our response.
Next week, more than 40 talk radio hosts are descending on Capital Hill for the FAIR (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=846)Annual Scare the Crap Out of Congress Boondoggle. The outrageous claims of the downfall of America caused by illegal immigration, along with similarly nutty myths will be presented as facts. Actual real news organization will cite the Center for Immigration Studies as a legitimate source of information. We must be prepared to call into our local radio stations, whose hosts are in D.C. next week, and be prepared to present the facts of immigration. Not by sugar coating the problems that are caused by illegal immigration, but rather by pointing out which specific laws are broken (INA 212(a)(9) anyone?) and how having a comprehensive solution can actually fix the immigration pothole in the legislative superhighway. Immigration Lawyers it is time to Stand Up and be vocal and beat back the immigration myths (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?bc=27924).
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-8070452709764975137?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/liar-what-does-health-care-have-to-do.html)
more...
pictures German World War One poster
StuckInTheMuck
08-07 10:47 AM
I filed mine, and my wife's, July 2 ('07) without medical, got status alert "RFE notice sent" Aug 4, guessing medical (have doc appointment tomorrow).
dresses world war 1 propaganda posters uk. Seen hereapr , worldworld war
p_aluri
04-01 05:38 PM
I am sorry to hear about your situation.
Your attorney may be completly wrong about the labor substitution. The USCIS has passed new rule, The labor will be voided once its passed 180days after approval. So the approved labors from your company has no value.
Did you try utilizing AC21 as your 140 approved and the 180days crossed?
Again I am not a lawyer, please talk to experienced attorneys.
Thank you,
Aluri
Hello folks,
i need some expert opinion here. These are my primary details.
COMPANY A:
1. Perm Labor - Nov 2006. (EB2)
2. I-140 approved - Nov 2007
3. I-485 filed - July 2007.
4 EAD - oct 2007
5 FP - Nov 2007
6 AP - Oct 2007
H1-B extension denied in dec 2007 due to variety of company A issues.
Invoked AC21 yesterday with company B.
COMPANY B: Bought substitution labor of Feb 2004 EB3.
I-140 filed : NSC : paper based filing no documents has been sent waiting for RFE on July 13 2007.
But my labor substitute on 140 has been used for somebody else by mistake and now company B says they have few other labors to substitute and they say we'll respond to the query saying that the original one has been used and please consider the second one. Attorney has made this mistake since many labors were filed at that time and the labor that they have used for me has been approved . Do you guys whatever the attorney is suggesting is going to work? Please let me know i haven't got an RFE yet..
Your attorney may be completly wrong about the labor substitution. The USCIS has passed new rule, The labor will be voided once its passed 180days after approval. So the approved labors from your company has no value.
Did you try utilizing AC21 as your 140 approved and the 180days crossed?
Again I am not a lawyer, please talk to experienced attorneys.
Thank you,
Aluri
Hello folks,
i need some expert opinion here. These are my primary details.
COMPANY A:
1. Perm Labor - Nov 2006. (EB2)
2. I-140 approved - Nov 2007
3. I-485 filed - July 2007.
4 EAD - oct 2007
5 FP - Nov 2007
6 AP - Oct 2007
H1-B extension denied in dec 2007 due to variety of company A issues.
Invoked AC21 yesterday with company B.
COMPANY B: Bought substitution labor of Feb 2004 EB3.
I-140 filed : NSC : paper based filing no documents has been sent waiting for RFE on July 13 2007.
But my labor substitute on 140 has been used for somebody else by mistake and now company B says they have few other labors to substitute and they say we'll respond to the query saying that the original one has been used and please consider the second one. Attorney has made this mistake since many labors were filed at that time and the labor that they have used for me has been approved . Do you guys whatever the attorney is suggesting is going to work? Please let me know i haven't got an RFE yet..
more...
makeup WORLD WAR 1 PROPAGANDA POSTERS
ilikekilo
05-21 04:34 PM
haha....that is funny
girlfriend [Poster]
singhsa3
09-05 07:31 PM
Come on people, we are less than 2 weeks away from our destiny.
All you have to do is to rise from your daily chores, just for one day and help make this event successful.
All you have to do is to rise from your daily chores, just for one day and help make this event successful.
hairstyles As many other tyrants, Nazi
WeShallOvercome
07-23 04:26 PM
You cannot file EAD/AP without the Receipt notice. Since u will be filing it urself anyways(no layer fee involved), y dont u file it with just stating the 485File number in the covering letter, also attach the prints of the checks cashed.
I would say its worth giving a shot.
[You may also state any lame reason that u/employer/lawyer have misplaced the receipt notice in the covering letter ...try this at ur own risk]
Thanks pa_Arora
That's what I'm planning to do in the end. Just waiting for my case to be receipted. Aa friend suggested putting a copy of the FP notice as it looks just like I-485 RN and has all the information in it.
I would say its worth giving a shot.
[You may also state any lame reason that u/employer/lawyer have misplaced the receipt notice in the covering letter ...try this at ur own risk]
Thanks pa_Arora
That's what I'm planning to do in the end. Just waiting for my case to be receipted. Aa friend suggested putting a copy of the FP notice as it looks just like I-485 RN and has all the information in it.
snathan
09-01 12:55 AM
Hi,
Hoping to get your opinion on my situation.
I am an Indian citizen, working in the US on an H1B, moving to Spain on a resident visa. My current US employer wants me to continue working from Spain. However, my Spanish visa doesn't permit me to work for a Spanish company, and my US employer doesn't have an office in Spain so they can't apply for a work permit for me. They do have Indian offices, though.
What are my options here? Some of the avenues I am exploring:
a. The company's Indian offices hire me as an external consultant and pay my Indian bank account. I declare my income in India and pay taxes in India, even though I reside in Spain.
b. The company (US or India) hires me as a Spanish consultant and pay me in Spain.
c. Any other opinion
I would greatly appreciate your opinion on my situation, or any references you can give me that I can discuss this with.
Thanks very much for your help.
- Sharada
I couldnt understand this...Your company is Indian and have office in US. They want you to work for Indian/US company but they want you to move to spain when they dont have any office.
Hoping to get your opinion on my situation.
I am an Indian citizen, working in the US on an H1B, moving to Spain on a resident visa. My current US employer wants me to continue working from Spain. However, my Spanish visa doesn't permit me to work for a Spanish company, and my US employer doesn't have an office in Spain so they can't apply for a work permit for me. They do have Indian offices, though.
What are my options here? Some of the avenues I am exploring:
a. The company's Indian offices hire me as an external consultant and pay my Indian bank account. I declare my income in India and pay taxes in India, even though I reside in Spain.
b. The company (US or India) hires me as a Spanish consultant and pay me in Spain.
c. Any other opinion
I would greatly appreciate your opinion on my situation, or any references you can give me that I can discuss this with.
Thanks very much for your help.
- Sharada
I couldnt understand this...Your company is Indian and have office in US. They want you to work for Indian/US company but they want you to move to spain when they dont have any office.
billu
08-06 12:24 PM
DISH Network IPTV (http://www.dishworldiptv.com/index.html)
this is what i am talking about
this is what i am talking about
No comments:
Post a Comment