RayP
12-14 01:16 AM
Partially in reply to Lazycis :
So, LAZYCIS, while you delayed to renew the EAD... you possibly were in US working on H1B. My situation is a little different, I am planning to leave the country for a year... so
1) Wanted to check if I can stay out of US for that long while AoS in pending...is there any such restriction that you can be away for only 2 months.
2) That potentially means I won't be getting paid in US... so no payroll for that much time, Is there any restriction on how many payslips I can miss.
Any help in this regard....
So, LAZYCIS, while you delayed to renew the EAD... you possibly were in US working on H1B. My situation is a little different, I am planning to leave the country for a year... so
1) Wanted to check if I can stay out of US for that long while AoS in pending...is there any such restriction that you can be away for only 2 months.
2) That potentially means I won't be getting paid in US... so no payroll for that much time, Is there any restriction on how many payslips I can miss.
Any help in this regard....
wallpaper ell amp; nikki running scared
Nadiya
08-08 04:21 PM
I'll be there and will try to bring friends.
glus
06-18 11:28 AM
First, you should not offer money for such a letter. Secondly, you can ask a colleague to write one for you. When you send a letter from a colleague, explain that the company had refused to write a letter for you. Include the phone number and the address of the company.
In general, a colleague letter is enough as long as the USCIS can verify the author of the letter.
In general, a colleague letter is enough as long as the USCIS can verify the author of the letter.
2011 ell amp; nikki running scared
Tito_ortiz
11-17 11:47 AM
Hmmm...
In my view I would say that it has more chances to go through between Jan 2007 and August 2007. After that, it is poticial campaign all over again.
That is just my humble opinion.
Regards,
Tito
Do you agree with this statement
If Employment Based Immigration Reform happens, it will happen in Calander year 2007. This reform could be in any form CIR or SKIL. IUf there is no reform by January 2008 its not gonna happen.
Thanks
In my view I would say that it has more chances to go through between Jan 2007 and August 2007. After that, it is poticial campaign all over again.
That is just my humble opinion.
Regards,
Tito
Do you agree with this statement
If Employment Based Immigration Reform happens, it will happen in Calander year 2007. This reform could be in any form CIR or SKIL. IUf there is no reform by January 2008 its not gonna happen.
Thanks
more...
Norristown
10-15 07:47 AM
You are correct Chandu !.
My manager suggested me to read this book. Actually he refered this book for one of the middle eastern issues.
Even though the company is not fully satisfied with Outsource team performance, still they want to stick to it some time beacuse of low budget and cutdown time. Outsourced company has offered 24x7 development which will attract most US companies.
I think time will come soon that we are going to have GreencardVoice.org and fight for early US citizenship for GC holders!
My manager suggested me to read this book. Actually he refered this book for one of the middle eastern issues.
Even though the company is not fully satisfied with Outsource team performance, still they want to stick to it some time beacuse of low budget and cutdown time. Outsourced company has offered 24x7 development which will attract most US companies.
I think time will come soon that we are going to have GreencardVoice.org and fight for early US citizenship for GC holders!
texcan
07-29 09:53 PM
It is best that you never be out of job. If you lose job, try to get one ASAP. It normally takes a month or two to get one if you work hard and try
Chandu and Gurus
I am curious to know how long can one stay out of job on an EAD. My case being 485 applied in july 2007 , 140 is already approved and its been about a year since 485 application.
So does the law says that one has to stay in employment or one can relax and take it easy for a little bit.
thanks in advance
-d
Chandu and Gurus
I am curious to know how long can one stay out of job on an EAD. My case being 485 applied in july 2007 , 140 is already approved and its been about a year since 485 application.
So does the law says that one has to stay in employment or one can relax and take it easy for a little bit.
thanks in advance
-d
more...
vivache
10-05 05:41 PM
Hi
Is there any webpage that has details on an EAD and what jobs a person can do, cannot do, whether new job it needs to tie in 50% to current job etc ..
I'm looking for the official page that has some detail on this.
Looked online did not find anything. A little surprised.
Let me know if any of you have any relevant links to this info.
Not looking for hearsay ... something official.
Thanks
V
Is there any webpage that has details on an EAD and what jobs a person can do, cannot do, whether new job it needs to tie in 50% to current job etc ..
I'm looking for the official page that has some detail on this.
Looked online did not find anything. A little surprised.
Let me know if any of you have any relevant links to this info.
Not looking for hearsay ... something official.
Thanks
V
2010 ell amp; nikki running scared
dhesha
08-30 01:33 PM
did you ask them if the processing date on the website includes applications received on July 2 also? I know it is not clear... but maybe if you had asked them...?
Mine is July 2 and he said my file is with in processing dates and they should be working on it so I wd assume it is <=
Mine is July 2 and he said my file is with in processing dates and they should be working on it so I wd assume it is <=
more...
baleraosreedhar
01-08 03:11 PM
it was in 2006 quota, got her h1 approval document in november, applied in november second week and by dec 2 week got her ssn.
She was on h4 for the past 3 years and converted to H1 in december officially( as she got her SSN)
She was on h4 for the past 3 years and converted to H1 in december officially( as she got her SSN)
hair Azerbaijan#39;s Ell and Nikki
sevenm
12-09 02:09 PM
The fiscal year starts in October 2007. Although you can apply from April 1, 2007 you can start working on October 1, 2007. You have to maintain legal status until October 1. Yor apllication for H1B does not guarantee you legal status before october 1.
more...
sriteam
07-07 02:04 PM
Rated 5 starts.
hot ell amp; nikki running scared
dagabaaj
01-23 11:19 AM
Finally the dates for I-140 have moved beyond the 8/15/2007 for Texas service center. That is a good sign. We should see some I-140 approvals soon then.
more...
house ell amp; nikki running scared
gjoe
03-10 06:15 AM
Some of you have been receiving the USCIS response about your FOIA request.
(3) As requested in the original letter, I need the number of pending AOS petitions sorted by their Priority date and NOT USCIS receipt date or receipt notice date, Category, Country of Birth/Nationality (if available)
Thanks,
XXXXX
Category, Country of Birth/Nationality should not be optional because this is a very important data which DOS has been using in their killer app to come up with the VISA bulletine every month. This is something they should provide along with the other data you have requested. If officially DHS don't have this information then DOS has to answer an FOIA request to clarify on how they arrive at the magic number in the visa bulletine.
(3) As requested in the original letter, I need the number of pending AOS petitions sorted by their Priority date and NOT USCIS receipt date or receipt notice date, Category, Country of Birth/Nationality (if available)
Thanks,
XXXXX
Category, Country of Birth/Nationality should not be optional because this is a very important data which DOS has been using in their killer app to come up with the VISA bulletine every month. This is something they should provide along with the other data you have requested. If officially DHS don't have this information then DOS has to answer an FOIA request to clarify on how they arrive at the magic number in the visa bulletine.
tattoo ell amp; nikki running scared
akred
07-07 12:57 PM
Rated 5 stars.
more...
pictures ell amp; nikki running scared
Ann Ruben
07-17 05:25 PM
There is a very good chance that the gov't will seek to remove your son from the US even if he is only found guilty of misdemeanors.
dresses ell amp; nikki running scared
Libra
09-14 04:00 PM
Pradhan is being interview on EBC radio....now
Whats the 30,000? I'm not listening
Whats the 30,000? I'm not listening
more...
makeup ell amp; nikki running scared
mnq1979
06-26 11:14 PM
If possible, try to get hospital record of live birth. Though it is not birth certificate, it may be used as secondary evidence.
well i m trying to get the bc of my wife and i m afraid that the date of "registration of birth" will be of this year as she is getting her bc this year only. so in order to back it up i m getting the affedevits from her parents. thats y i asked that will it b OK if i get the affedevits from ABC city where her parents reside currentlty or do i have to get the affedevit from the city where she was born.
pls. note no matter from where we make the affedevits it will say that she was born in xyz city.
i m not sure does it mke any diffrence if we get the affedevits from abc city.
there is no other record available which i can produce.
pls help!!!!
well i m trying to get the bc of my wife and i m afraid that the date of "registration of birth" will be of this year as she is getting her bc this year only. so in order to back it up i m getting the affedevits from her parents. thats y i asked that will it b OK if i get the affedevits from ABC city where her parents reside currentlty or do i have to get the affedevit from the city where she was born.
pls. note no matter from where we make the affedevits it will say that she was born in xyz city.
i m not sure does it mke any diffrence if we get the affedevits from abc city.
there is no other record available which i can produce.
pls help!!!!
girlfriend ell amp; nikki running scared
h1bmajdoor
03-04 07:52 PM
this is obviously great news for those affected.
however the speed at which the authorities have acted, and the almost total lack of support from the Congress could imply that politics here is (like desh) is quickly heading down the "what's in it for me" path.
however the speed at which the authorities have acted, and the almost total lack of support from the Congress could imply that politics here is (like desh) is quickly heading down the "what's in it for me" path.
hairstyles ell amp; nikki running scared
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
Earned_GC
06-17 10:11 AM
I am in the same boat. lets us wait and watch .
We should continue this thread and lets see what people has to say.
We should continue this thread and lets see what people has to say.
hebron
08-10 10:15 AM
Suggestions....anybody? ^^^^
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen