riteshtijoriwala
11-30 12:49 PM
Hi,
I have the a situation where I need some advice:
I got my first job in june 2005 and was on my OPT until dec 2005. My H1-B was filed by this company and it started from Jan 1, 2006. Now I left the company in Sept 8 2006 and joined a consulting (vendor) firm. I am a contractor at Microsoft through this firm. This firm filed my H1-B on Sept 9, 2006. Now, 2 weeks back, when I checked the status of my case, I saw USCIS sent an RFE requesting more documents from my firm regarding the contract and type of job description. They gave a deadline until feb 2007 to submit docs.
My first initial contract length at Microsoft through this firm is until April 2007, but is more likely to extend for another 6 months.
Now my question is, since I cannot be sure if the contract will extend, I am starting to look for jobs...If I get a job, will it be alright to accept it and have that new company file my H1-B even though my current H1-B from my current firm is still in process and not approved yet?
I have the a situation where I need some advice:
I got my first job in june 2005 and was on my OPT until dec 2005. My H1-B was filed by this company and it started from Jan 1, 2006. Now I left the company in Sept 8 2006 and joined a consulting (vendor) firm. I am a contractor at Microsoft through this firm. This firm filed my H1-B on Sept 9, 2006. Now, 2 weeks back, when I checked the status of my case, I saw USCIS sent an RFE requesting more documents from my firm regarding the contract and type of job description. They gave a deadline until feb 2007 to submit docs.
My first initial contract length at Microsoft through this firm is until April 2007, but is more likely to extend for another 6 months.
Now my question is, since I cannot be sure if the contract will extend, I am starting to look for jobs...If I get a job, will it be alright to accept it and have that new company file my H1-B even though my current H1-B from my current firm is still in process and not approved yet?
wallpaper Next image: cartoon zebra
Macaca
03-06 08:44 PM
Some paras from Testing Time for Democrats (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501185.html)
The story of the new Congress is actually two stories. Democratic leaders and their grass-roots supporters will decide in the coming days which narrative will prevail.
In January, Democrats dominated the news, the public agenda and the Republicans. In the last weeks of February, the Republicans came back -- not by offering grand proposals but by using the limited tools they have to prove that Democrats don't have enough power, yet, to end the war in Iraq.
When they took control, Democrats looked crisp and disciplined, attributes not normally associated with their party. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's House quickly passed the Democrats' popular campaign promises, including measures on the minimum wage, stem cell research, renewable energy and reforms of the student loan and Medicare prescription drug programs.
This agenda had its skeptics, but it provided focus for a party long out of power and drew significant Republican defections, feeding a raft of "Republicans in Disarray" stories. Pelosi noted at a January news conference that so many Republicans voted for the Democratic proposals that one of her colleagues joked: "Maybe you made these bills too easy."
The Senate Democrats quickly pushed through a different version of the minimum-wage increase, and the party's leading foreign policy voices framed a critique of President Bush's Iraq policy that squared with the public's increasingly skeptical view of the war.
But recent weeks have held nothing but trouble for Democrats -- and it is odd, as one Democrat noted, that they should be on the defensive when the scandal over the treatment of wounded veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center has focused attention on yet another failed aspect of the administration's execution of the war and its aftermath.
Instead, one news story after another has highlighted differences among congressional Democrats over how to end the war. There is also the divide between the Washington party and activists at the grass roots and in the blogosphere. All of these problems are rooted in two unalterable facts: Democrats, on the basis of their thin majorities in Congress, lack the numbers to force an unwilling president to alter his course. And they are short of votes to cut off funds for the war altogether.
My Comments
Dems are not united on most issues.
Although this article is on Iraq, a similar situation will occur on Immigration. The big difference is that Dems are very interested in Iraq (they won elections on Iraq) whereas I haven't seen much much Democratic interest on Immigration.
The story of the new Congress is actually two stories. Democratic leaders and their grass-roots supporters will decide in the coming days which narrative will prevail.
In January, Democrats dominated the news, the public agenda and the Republicans. In the last weeks of February, the Republicans came back -- not by offering grand proposals but by using the limited tools they have to prove that Democrats don't have enough power, yet, to end the war in Iraq.
When they took control, Democrats looked crisp and disciplined, attributes not normally associated with their party. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's House quickly passed the Democrats' popular campaign promises, including measures on the minimum wage, stem cell research, renewable energy and reforms of the student loan and Medicare prescription drug programs.
This agenda had its skeptics, but it provided focus for a party long out of power and drew significant Republican defections, feeding a raft of "Republicans in Disarray" stories. Pelosi noted at a January news conference that so many Republicans voted for the Democratic proposals that one of her colleagues joked: "Maybe you made these bills too easy."
The Senate Democrats quickly pushed through a different version of the minimum-wage increase, and the party's leading foreign policy voices framed a critique of President Bush's Iraq policy that squared with the public's increasingly skeptical view of the war.
But recent weeks have held nothing but trouble for Democrats -- and it is odd, as one Democrat noted, that they should be on the defensive when the scandal over the treatment of wounded veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center has focused attention on yet another failed aspect of the administration's execution of the war and its aftermath.
Instead, one news story after another has highlighted differences among congressional Democrats over how to end the war. There is also the divide between the Washington party and activists at the grass roots and in the blogosphere. All of these problems are rooted in two unalterable facts: Democrats, on the basis of their thin majorities in Congress, lack the numbers to force an unwilling president to alter his course. And they are short of votes to cut off funds for the war altogether.
My Comments
Dems are not united on most issues.
Although this article is on Iraq, a similar situation will occur on Immigration. The big difference is that Dems are very interested in Iraq (they won elections on Iraq) whereas I haven't seen much much Democratic interest on Immigration.
gc_wireless
05-25 01:08 PM
Company A:
EB-2 PD: Mar 03, Labor, I-140 approved.
then moved to company B.
Company B:
EB-2 PD: August 05. Labor, I-140 approved, I-485 pending.
Want to move back to Company A as Company A is willing to continue; so need to inter-file my I-485 from Company B to Company A. Did you guys do this before? If so, what is the procedure? How do we know if the inter-filing is succeded? Do you have any success or failure stories?
Please help.. every hint helps me in making decision.
Thanks!
EB-2 PD: Mar 03, Labor, I-140 approved.
then moved to company B.
Company B:
EB-2 PD: August 05. Labor, I-140 approved, I-485 pending.
Want to move back to Company A as Company A is willing to continue; so need to inter-file my I-485 from Company B to Company A. Did you guys do this before? If so, what is the procedure? How do we know if the inter-filing is succeded? Do you have any success or failure stories?
Please help.. every hint helps me in making decision.
Thanks!
2011 Zebra cartoon Stock Photo -
Macaca
07-22 05:00 PM
DeMint's Tactics Irk GOP Leaders (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_7/news/19395-1.html) By John Stanton and Erin P. Billings, ROLL CALL STAFF, July 17, 2007
Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-S.C.) speedy ascension to de facto leader of the Senate's conservatives may have won him a number of fans among fiscal hawks, reform-minded watchdogs and some fellow Republican Senators, who applaud the first-term Senator for his willingness to buck the chamber's "Old Boy" traditions. But DeMint's tactics have started to chafe GOP leaders and prompted private warnings that their tolerance has worn thin.
DeMint led a small group of Republican conservatives who successfully killed immigration reform in June and has openly dueled with Democratic leaders over earmark reform, calling them out for refusing to adopt Senate-specific earmark rule changes before going to conference on a broader ethics bill that includes them.
That willingness to sidestep his leadership on immigration last month, and his ongoing fight with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) over earmarks reforms, has begun to irritate Republican Senate elders, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Minority Whip Trent Lott (Miss.).
According to several Republicans, party leaders have made it clear to DeMint that while they may give him some running room over the next few appropriations-laden weeks, they will not tolerate what they see as repeated efforts to hijack the Senate floor and the public spotlight.
DeMint declined to comment directly on any warning leadership may have delivered to him regarding his increasingly high-profile crusades. But he did say it is up to McConnell and other GOP leaders to take up the mantle of reform if they do not want others to do so.
"I have a lot of respect for our leadership, and we work well as a team," DeMint said. "But there are enough of us who believe this is where we need to go as a party. And we hope our leadership will take us there. But we'll take up the banner if we need to."
Publicly, many Senate Republicans applauded DeMint's courage to take on the normally decorous chamber and for sticking up for conservative principles at a time when the party is struggling to regain its footing. But several Senators and high-level aides also privately noted that DeMint needs to be careful not to go too far, with several saying he runs the risk of being marginalized as he carves out a reputation of a flame-throwing, first-term Senator who casts aside legislating altogether.
"You have to always be careful around here not to overplay your hand," Lott warned last week.
Although disagreements between the two date back to DeMint's opposition to a Lott proposal to move train tracks in his state following Hurricane Katrina, the two have had an ugly split in recent weeks over DeMint's role as Republican Steering Committee chairman. According to GOP aides, Lott yanked his annual $7,500 contribution to the committee's funding after DeMint aides criticized his efforts to push through the failed immigration reform bill. Lott's move to pull the funds was first reported in Congressional Quarterly.
"At some point [DeMint is] going to have to learn he can't always throw missiles," said one senior Republican aide. "He's going to have to work on diplomacy. But so far he's been rewarded for his behavior and has yet to pay a price for it."
With that in mind, Republican sources said GOP leaders are keeping a close eye on the South Carolinian as he continues his crusades. Those GOP sources said conversations between the leadership and DeMint have taken place, and the message has been made clear that McConnell's patience isn't limitless when it comes to DeMint's efforts to block legislation or shut down the chamber to push his priorities.
So far, however, most of DeMint's colleagues - especially those in conservative corners - seem to be accepting of his procedural maneuvers.
"My own view is it's every Senator's right to protect their interests," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.). "He was very effective on the immigration bill, and a lot of his colleagues were with him."
And while Gregg acknowledged DeMint carries less favor with Senators over his current cause to use the ethics package as the vehicle for his opposition to earmark spending, he believes DeMint's standing in the Conference remains intact.
"Everyone is very individualistic around here," Gregg said. "You don't run the risk of losing the respect of your colleagues just for being individualistic. It's just the opposite."
But not all Senators view it that way, especially among veteran Republicans who cherish a chamber that's known for putting a premium on decorum, deliberation and seniority. DeMint, in contrast, was part of the more aggressive band of Republicans elected in 1994, some of whom have since moved from the more partisan House to the Senate.
Sen. John Ensign (Nev.), who as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee is in the leadership circle, said the reviews of DeMint's tactics "depends on what side you are on."
For Ensign, that's on the side of DeMint and others who he called "a breath of fresh air in the U.S. Senate." Still, Ensign conceded that the approach isn't without flaw, saying: "There's always a risk, there's always a balance. But when you are in the minority, you need to exercise your rights."
Indeed, DeMint has a loyal following among more junior Republicans, particularly his fellow House alumni, and those Senators who believe it behooves the party to fight rather than negotiate with the now-majority Democrats.
"It's a thankless task," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who joined DeMint in his efforts to defeat the immigration reform measure.
"Some people get mad at him, they want him slowed down," Sessions said. "But right now, most Republicans respect what he's doing. Really, my impression is that even those who are dubious of DeMint's leadership are beginning to feel like this is healthy and that maybe we do need a more vigorous debate."
DeMint said while some senior Republicans such as Sen. Kit Bond (Mo.) have supported him, he acknowledged that much of his backing has come from the GOP's increasing ranks of junior lawmakers.
"It's not universally true, but to a point it's true. It's one of the unfortunate things that has happened to Congress over the years," DeMint said, adding that many lawmakers are afraid to speak out because they are afraid of reprisals.
"A lot of people are afraid if they come out strong against earmarks they're not going to get any," DeMint noted.
As for the chamber's more entrenched Members, DeMint argues that their opposition - both public and private - is motivated by their desire to keep cash flowing to their states. "A lot of their power and clout back home is based on how much money they can bring home," he argued.
DeMint said his party would be wise to take up the issue of ethics as a central fight, arguing that in recent weeks he has seen increasing interest across the country in his battle with Reid. "In some ways this is immigration all over again in that out in the public there's a feeling that this is wasteful spending" and that Congress is failing to seriously address the issue, he said.
DeMint also has begun to reach out to the vast network of editorialists and talk radio hosts that backed his successful rebellion against the immigration debate and has been credited with giving DeMint and his supporters enough public support to defeat the bill.
Significantly, he also has begun to see support from other media outlets, which are not normally connected to the conservative world. For instance, the Los Angeles Times editorial board has come out in support of his work, DeMint noted, and he believes that people across the country are becoming increasingly upset with Congress' handling of earmark reform.
DeMint - who calls the earmark process "one of the corrupting [forces] of Washington" - said McConnell has so far backed his efforts to force Reid to accept the Senate rule changes before conference to ensure no changes to the earmark reforms are made. "Mitch McConnell is very supportive of what I've been doing," DeMint said, adding that "he's asked me to work with Sen. Reid" to find a solution.
But Reid "has been stonewalling me," DeMint said, and seemed skeptical that any solution appears imminent.
DeMint also said that regardless of his leadership's complaints or demands - or those of the Senate's old guard - he will not back down. "This isn't a job I wanted, but I'm good at it," he said, adding, "I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing."
Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-S.C.) speedy ascension to de facto leader of the Senate's conservatives may have won him a number of fans among fiscal hawks, reform-minded watchdogs and some fellow Republican Senators, who applaud the first-term Senator for his willingness to buck the chamber's "Old Boy" traditions. But DeMint's tactics have started to chafe GOP leaders and prompted private warnings that their tolerance has worn thin.
DeMint led a small group of Republican conservatives who successfully killed immigration reform in June and has openly dueled with Democratic leaders over earmark reform, calling them out for refusing to adopt Senate-specific earmark rule changes before going to conference on a broader ethics bill that includes them.
That willingness to sidestep his leadership on immigration last month, and his ongoing fight with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) over earmarks reforms, has begun to irritate Republican Senate elders, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Minority Whip Trent Lott (Miss.).
According to several Republicans, party leaders have made it clear to DeMint that while they may give him some running room over the next few appropriations-laden weeks, they will not tolerate what they see as repeated efforts to hijack the Senate floor and the public spotlight.
DeMint declined to comment directly on any warning leadership may have delivered to him regarding his increasingly high-profile crusades. But he did say it is up to McConnell and other GOP leaders to take up the mantle of reform if they do not want others to do so.
"I have a lot of respect for our leadership, and we work well as a team," DeMint said. "But there are enough of us who believe this is where we need to go as a party. And we hope our leadership will take us there. But we'll take up the banner if we need to."
Publicly, many Senate Republicans applauded DeMint's courage to take on the normally decorous chamber and for sticking up for conservative principles at a time when the party is struggling to regain its footing. But several Senators and high-level aides also privately noted that DeMint needs to be careful not to go too far, with several saying he runs the risk of being marginalized as he carves out a reputation of a flame-throwing, first-term Senator who casts aside legislating altogether.
"You have to always be careful around here not to overplay your hand," Lott warned last week.
Although disagreements between the two date back to DeMint's opposition to a Lott proposal to move train tracks in his state following Hurricane Katrina, the two have had an ugly split in recent weeks over DeMint's role as Republican Steering Committee chairman. According to GOP aides, Lott yanked his annual $7,500 contribution to the committee's funding after DeMint aides criticized his efforts to push through the failed immigration reform bill. Lott's move to pull the funds was first reported in Congressional Quarterly.
"At some point [DeMint is] going to have to learn he can't always throw missiles," said one senior Republican aide. "He's going to have to work on diplomacy. But so far he's been rewarded for his behavior and has yet to pay a price for it."
With that in mind, Republican sources said GOP leaders are keeping a close eye on the South Carolinian as he continues his crusades. Those GOP sources said conversations between the leadership and DeMint have taken place, and the message has been made clear that McConnell's patience isn't limitless when it comes to DeMint's efforts to block legislation or shut down the chamber to push his priorities.
So far, however, most of DeMint's colleagues - especially those in conservative corners - seem to be accepting of his procedural maneuvers.
"My own view is it's every Senator's right to protect their interests," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.). "He was very effective on the immigration bill, and a lot of his colleagues were with him."
And while Gregg acknowledged DeMint carries less favor with Senators over his current cause to use the ethics package as the vehicle for his opposition to earmark spending, he believes DeMint's standing in the Conference remains intact.
"Everyone is very individualistic around here," Gregg said. "You don't run the risk of losing the respect of your colleagues just for being individualistic. It's just the opposite."
But not all Senators view it that way, especially among veteran Republicans who cherish a chamber that's known for putting a premium on decorum, deliberation and seniority. DeMint, in contrast, was part of the more aggressive band of Republicans elected in 1994, some of whom have since moved from the more partisan House to the Senate.
Sen. John Ensign (Nev.), who as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee is in the leadership circle, said the reviews of DeMint's tactics "depends on what side you are on."
For Ensign, that's on the side of DeMint and others who he called "a breath of fresh air in the U.S. Senate." Still, Ensign conceded that the approach isn't without flaw, saying: "There's always a risk, there's always a balance. But when you are in the minority, you need to exercise your rights."
Indeed, DeMint has a loyal following among more junior Republicans, particularly his fellow House alumni, and those Senators who believe it behooves the party to fight rather than negotiate with the now-majority Democrats.
"It's a thankless task," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who joined DeMint in his efforts to defeat the immigration reform measure.
"Some people get mad at him, they want him slowed down," Sessions said. "But right now, most Republicans respect what he's doing. Really, my impression is that even those who are dubious of DeMint's leadership are beginning to feel like this is healthy and that maybe we do need a more vigorous debate."
DeMint said while some senior Republicans such as Sen. Kit Bond (Mo.) have supported him, he acknowledged that much of his backing has come from the GOP's increasing ranks of junior lawmakers.
"It's not universally true, but to a point it's true. It's one of the unfortunate things that has happened to Congress over the years," DeMint said, adding that many lawmakers are afraid to speak out because they are afraid of reprisals.
"A lot of people are afraid if they come out strong against earmarks they're not going to get any," DeMint noted.
As for the chamber's more entrenched Members, DeMint argues that their opposition - both public and private - is motivated by their desire to keep cash flowing to their states. "A lot of their power and clout back home is based on how much money they can bring home," he argued.
DeMint said his party would be wise to take up the issue of ethics as a central fight, arguing that in recent weeks he has seen increasing interest across the country in his battle with Reid. "In some ways this is immigration all over again in that out in the public there's a feeling that this is wasteful spending" and that Congress is failing to seriously address the issue, he said.
DeMint also has begun to reach out to the vast network of editorialists and talk radio hosts that backed his successful rebellion against the immigration debate and has been credited with giving DeMint and his supporters enough public support to defeat the bill.
Significantly, he also has begun to see support from other media outlets, which are not normally connected to the conservative world. For instance, the Los Angeles Times editorial board has come out in support of his work, DeMint noted, and he believes that people across the country are becoming increasingly upset with Congress' handling of earmark reform.
DeMint - who calls the earmark process "one of the corrupting [forces] of Washington" - said McConnell has so far backed his efforts to force Reid to accept the Senate rule changes before conference to ensure no changes to the earmark reforms are made. "Mitch McConnell is very supportive of what I've been doing," DeMint said, adding that "he's asked me to work with Sen. Reid" to find a solution.
But Reid "has been stonewalling me," DeMint said, and seemed skeptical that any solution appears imminent.
DeMint also said that regardless of his leadership's complaints or demands - or those of the Senate's old guard - he will not back down. "This isn't a job I wanted, but I'm good at it," he said, adding, "I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing."
more...
Macaca
02-18 06:55 PM
Some paras from In Majority, Democrats Run Hill Much as GOP Did (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701352.html).
Democrats pledged to bring courtesy to the Capitol when they assumed control of Congress last month. But from the start, the new majority used its muscle to force through its agenda in the House and sideline Republicans.
And after an initial burst of lawmaking, the Democratic juggernaut has kept on rolling.
Of nine major bills passed by the House since the 110th Congress began, Republicans have been allowed to make amendments to just one, a measure directing federal research into additives to biofuels. In the arcane world of Capitol Hill, where the majority dictates which legislation comes before the House and which dies on a shelf, the ability to offer amendments from the floor is one of the minority's few tools.
Last week, the strong-arming continued during the most important debate the Congress has faced yet -- the discussion about the Iraq war. Democrats initially said they would allow Republicans to propose one alternative to the resolution denouncing a troop buildup but, days later, they thought better of it.
And yet, significant numbers of House Republicans have voted along with Democrats on the legislation passed so far -- a fact that somewhat mutes criticism about iron-fisted tactics.
In the first weeks of the new Congress, however, Democrats bypassed the usual legislative committees, refused to allow any amendments and took their agenda straight to the floor for passage. They said they needed a clear path to pass a handful of popular measures that were the basis of their successful November campaign, including expanded money for stem cell research, an increase in the federal minimum wage and implementation of recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission.
Democrats said they would impose "regular order," the rules that permit the minority to participate more widely, in short order.
But even after passing their domestic agenda, Democratic leaders have continued to marginalize Republicans, preventing them from having a voice in legislation such as a bill to withhold federal pensions from lawmakers convicted of ethics felonies and a $463 billion bill to fund the federal government for the rest of this fiscal year.
Last week's debate on the Iraq war, culminating in its passage Friday by a vote of 246 to 182, was conducted under a "closed rule," which means Republicans could not offer alternatives. "I understand what they did on their agenda," said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). "But to do a closed rule on something like this is a huge mistake. We're talking about war and peace. You don't play politics with war."
While they did not allow amendments on the Iraq debate, the Democrats gave every member of the chamber five minutes to speak on the resolution -- an unprecedented amount of debate on a nonbinding resolution, according to Thomas E. Mann, a scholar at Brookings Institution. He said that is more than the Republicans offered Democrats when the GOP passed a resolution last spring supporting the war in Iraq.
Democrats pledged to bring courtesy to the Capitol when they assumed control of Congress last month. But from the start, the new majority used its muscle to force through its agenda in the House and sideline Republicans.
And after an initial burst of lawmaking, the Democratic juggernaut has kept on rolling.
Of nine major bills passed by the House since the 110th Congress began, Republicans have been allowed to make amendments to just one, a measure directing federal research into additives to biofuels. In the arcane world of Capitol Hill, where the majority dictates which legislation comes before the House and which dies on a shelf, the ability to offer amendments from the floor is one of the minority's few tools.
Last week, the strong-arming continued during the most important debate the Congress has faced yet -- the discussion about the Iraq war. Democrats initially said they would allow Republicans to propose one alternative to the resolution denouncing a troop buildup but, days later, they thought better of it.
And yet, significant numbers of House Republicans have voted along with Democrats on the legislation passed so far -- a fact that somewhat mutes criticism about iron-fisted tactics.
In the first weeks of the new Congress, however, Democrats bypassed the usual legislative committees, refused to allow any amendments and took their agenda straight to the floor for passage. They said they needed a clear path to pass a handful of popular measures that were the basis of their successful November campaign, including expanded money for stem cell research, an increase in the federal minimum wage and implementation of recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission.
Democrats said they would impose "regular order," the rules that permit the minority to participate more widely, in short order.
But even after passing their domestic agenda, Democratic leaders have continued to marginalize Republicans, preventing them from having a voice in legislation such as a bill to withhold federal pensions from lawmakers convicted of ethics felonies and a $463 billion bill to fund the federal government for the rest of this fiscal year.
Last week's debate on the Iraq war, culminating in its passage Friday by a vote of 246 to 182, was conducted under a "closed rule," which means Republicans could not offer alternatives. "I understand what they did on their agenda," said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). "But to do a closed rule on something like this is a huge mistake. We're talking about war and peace. You don't play politics with war."
While they did not allow amendments on the Iraq debate, the Democrats gave every member of the chamber five minutes to speak on the resolution -- an unprecedented amount of debate on a nonbinding resolution, according to Thomas E. Mann, a scholar at Brookings Institution. He said that is more than the Republicans offered Democrats when the GOP passed a resolution last spring supporting the war in Iraq.
newtoearth
05-11 08:14 AM
Is it a joke?
I am seeing this
Category India Most Other Countries
F1 8 November 2004 8 November 2004
FX 1 December 2006 1 December 2006
F2A 1 January 2008 1 January 2008
F2B 15 November 2002 15 November 2002
F3 22 June 2001 22 June 2001
F4 1 September 2000 1 September 2000
E1 Current Current
E2 1 February 2005 Current
E3 22 October 2001 22 June 2003
EW 1 June 2001 1 June 2001
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
I am seeing this
Category India Most Other Countries
F1 8 November 2004 8 November 2004
FX 1 December 2006 1 December 2006
F2A 1 January 2008 1 January 2008
F2B 15 November 2002 15 November 2002
F3 22 June 2001 22 June 2001
F4 1 September 2000 1 September 2000
E1 Current Current
E2 1 February 2005 Current
E3 22 October 2001 22 June 2003
EW 1 June 2001 1 June 2001
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
more...
franklin
06-17 08:02 PM
FBI name CAN take forever, it doesn't ALWAYS take forever
2010 never want zebras on your
kirupa
09-05 05:37 AM
Or a banning of his IP should the need arise ;-)
more...
sundarpn
07-01 01:44 AM
is it Ok to share copy of one's 140 or 485 document copies when checking into feasibility of AC21?
hair Cute Cartoon Zebra Throw
rvpg
11-06 08:32 PM
I have visa stamp in the name of previous employer and I 797 from current employer. I have traveled with these and had no problems at re-entry.
But previous employer has completed processing of my H1B cancellation. Can I still re-enter with visa stamp in the name of previous employer?
Thanks!
But previous employer has completed processing of my H1B cancellation. Can I still re-enter with visa stamp in the name of previous employer?
Thanks!
more...
glosrfc
03-17 05:21 PM
I was expecting some more inspirational stuff too.
Like this:
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/4339/cat1k.jpg
Or this, if you prefer your text to move:
http://www.imagonewmedia.com/player.php?id=55
Like this:
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/4339/cat1k.jpg
Or this, if you prefer your text to move:
http://www.imagonewmedia.com/player.php?id=55
hot Yes, zebras.
brick2006
11-02 02:34 PM
One of my friends has goofed up his labor filing:
His actual date of termination with his previous company was 5/31/2007, but in the labor filing he has said that he was employed with the previous company till 6/30/2007....
he is ready for filing his 140(EB2)? can he correct his dates of when he files for 140....
WILL HE HAVE TO file for labor again??????????:(
His actual date of termination with his previous company was 5/31/2007, but in the labor filing he has said that he was employed with the previous company till 6/30/2007....
he is ready for filing his 140(EB2)? can he correct his dates of when he files for 140....
WILL HE HAVE TO file for labor again??????????:(
more...
house Funny Zebra#39;s Revenge
sdeshpan
04-23 01:49 PM
I believe they promise a 15-day (business days, I assume) turnaround on Premium Proc applications. So it could take anywhere between 1 and 15 days, if not longer in certain cases.
Also, why is going to India dependent on receiving on an approval of I-140??
Also, why is going to India dependent on receiving on an approval of I-140??
tattoo Cartoon Evil Grin Zebra
vsc
01-23 02:19 PM
Hi
presently i am working on h1b for a tech company. I also have my ead (obtained as a result of july 07 fiasco).
Can i start a company, incorporate a llc or a class c company on my ead? What would be my options?
i know that if i had solely my h1b, i could start a class c company but not work for it(use a gc or a citizen) to do it
my question is that can i still continue on my status quo--ie use h1 for my employer and use ead to start a company, or i have to give up my h1 status? since my wife is on h4, i have to continue on h1b until she gets her ead.
thanks!
presently i am working on h1b for a tech company. I also have my ead (obtained as a result of july 07 fiasco).
Can i start a company, incorporate a llc or a class c company on my ead? What would be my options?
i know that if i had solely my h1b, i could start a class c company but not work for it(use a gc or a citizen) to do it
my question is that can i still continue on my status quo--ie use h1 for my employer and use ead to start a company, or i have to give up my h1 status? since my wife is on h4, i have to continue on h1b until she gets her ead.
thanks!
more...
pictures African Animals cartoon 2
helpless_man
11-08 01:15 PM
Hi,
Recently I transferred my H1 to another company. My H1 and my wife�s H4 got expired on last August 2nd 2007. However, the new company filed H1B application and it got approved 2 weeks back, but forgot to file for H4 extension for my wife. My company is saying they will file for H4 extension (I-539) now, even though her visa/I-94 got expired and she doesn�t have to go back home. Do you think they are on right track? I�d really appreciate if anyone could suggest me on this.
Recently I transferred my H1 to another company. My H1 and my wife�s H4 got expired on last August 2nd 2007. However, the new company filed H1B application and it got approved 2 weeks back, but forgot to file for H4 extension for my wife. My company is saying they will file for H4 extension (I-539) now, even though her visa/I-94 got expired and she doesn�t have to go back home. Do you think they are on right track? I�d really appreciate if anyone could suggest me on this.
dresses Cute Cartoon Zebra Vector
smahwal
08-05 05:57 PM
We got an approval and CPO email on my husbands (primaries) application. Nothing on mine yet but I would not be surprised if both come together. PD Dec 2005 RD July 2 2007
more...
makeup cartoon zebras - 579074
misanthrope
11-12 01:46 PM
Onion is a "news" website focused on delivering laffs.
girlfriend How to draw cartoon snakes
sukhwinderd
09-13 08:56 AM
also, is the receipt date on your 485 notice same as the actual received date at one of the service centers ?
hairstyles Cartoon: Zebras go AFCON
Karthikthiru
07-18 10:51 AM
New Service Center Processing Time Report is just published
Karthik
Karthik
freddyCR
February 6th, 2005, 02:38 PM
You're absolutely right. When I saw it on the screen , I thought of making them pretty, but what the heck....that's how I saw them originally