lyiu18
02-23 08:10 AM
good to know, thx.
wallpaper love poems shakespeare.
wata
10-16 07:15 PM
Do I have to hire 10 employees at the first day I open my liquor store ?
Thanks
Thanks
texcan
09-02 04:58 PM
I will be taking up a new job and I have been told by the new employer that, benifits will start after 30 days.
I presently have insurence through my employer. My understnading is that, insurence stops the day I leave the present employer. Now how do i handle the stop gap in insurence to be on safer side...??
Any help is appreciated...
AFAIK you can continue your insurance coverage as it was from previous employer only difference is that you will have to pay for it. Ask HR or Insurance Agent assigned/responsible for your employer.
Alternatively you can buy short term insurance, i used Fortis many times in past. Its very cheap and will cover you between jobs. Search for short-term coverage.
HTH
-s
I presently have insurence through my employer. My understnading is that, insurence stops the day I leave the present employer. Now how do i handle the stop gap in insurence to be on safer side...??
Any help is appreciated...
AFAIK you can continue your insurance coverage as it was from previous employer only difference is that you will have to pay for it. Ask HR or Insurance Agent assigned/responsible for your employer.
Alternatively you can buy short term insurance, i used Fortis many times in past. Its very cheap and will cover you between jobs. Search for short-term coverage.
HTH
-s
2011 Love Poems Shakespeare. love poems shakespeare. sweet
glus
11-20 06:50 PM
Again if your AP is approved but is in mail or whatever and you leave the country then you are ok (technically) in somebody mailing it out to you otherwise you cannot claim to have satisfied the rule USCIS has put forward and the IO has every right to deny entry at the POE
Extract from the instructions of I 131 form
If you travel before the advance parole document is issued, your application will be deemed abandoned if:
A. You depart from the United States; or
B. The person seeking advance parole attempts to enter the United States before a decision is made on the application.
- good luck
kris
Kris,
Yes, you are 100% correct. If one leaves during AP is pending then, at the time of adjudication of the pending AP, the officer can run a query and find that the person has left the U.S. before AP was approved. Then, such AP gets denied because the petition was abandoned . In fact, there was an official memo regarding this some time ago. You can find it under press releases on USCIS website. If, however, the USCIS does not notice that you left and approves AP while you are being outside of the United States, the AP is not valid and upon re-entry CBP may deny entry (if notices). This is why, when applying for AP, one specifies if AP is to be issued to a person who is In US or to a person who is NOT in the U.S. This is needed to satisfy the law. Consequently, it is risky to leave U.S. while AP is pending and not having a visa in a passport.
Regards,
Extract from the instructions of I 131 form
If you travel before the advance parole document is issued, your application will be deemed abandoned if:
A. You depart from the United States; or
B. The person seeking advance parole attempts to enter the United States before a decision is made on the application.
- good luck
kris
Kris,
Yes, you are 100% correct. If one leaves during AP is pending then, at the time of adjudication of the pending AP, the officer can run a query and find that the person has left the U.S. before AP was approved. Then, such AP gets denied because the petition was abandoned . In fact, there was an official memo regarding this some time ago. You can find it under press releases on USCIS website. If, however, the USCIS does not notice that you left and approves AP while you are being outside of the United States, the AP is not valid and upon re-entry CBP may deny entry (if notices). This is why, when applying for AP, one specifies if AP is to be issued to a person who is In US or to a person who is NOT in the U.S. This is needed to satisfy the law. Consequently, it is risky to leave U.S. while AP is pending and not having a visa in a passport.
Regards,
more...
rayoflight
05-05 04:07 PM
Wow that's a relief. I know you might have already done so just confirm the date until when the I-94 is issued and make a copy just in case.
shana04
03-08 12:23 PM
My PD of JAN 27 05 became current with the March bulletin. While folks from TSC got GCs from March 2nd itself, NSC seemed to have little action.
By some random combination of POJ options, which changed recently, I managed to get a service request in on March 2nd (Type of service requested: -- Outside Normal Processing Times). The same day, I had Infopass and I was told its been "Preadjudicated, under review" and there was some recent movement on my case (transfered internally). This got my spirits up, but in just 2 days, I got a pretty horrible response to my SR, which made me feel this is going to be an uphill battle:
I was about to contact the state senator today, but early today morning we got our CPO emails.
My case is pretty straight forward:
Processing center: NSC
PD: JAN 27 2005 non perm which got approved just in time for July 07 fiasco.
I-485: July 07 filer
RFE in Nov 2008 (immunizations for wife, she had taken certain waivers due to pregnancy --- and Employment verification for myself)
Approval: Today (March 8th 2010)
Congrats
By some random combination of POJ options, which changed recently, I managed to get a service request in on March 2nd (Type of service requested: -- Outside Normal Processing Times). The same day, I had Infopass and I was told its been "Preadjudicated, under review" and there was some recent movement on my case (transfered internally). This got my spirits up, but in just 2 days, I got a pretty horrible response to my SR, which made me feel this is going to be an uphill battle:
I was about to contact the state senator today, but early today morning we got our CPO emails.
My case is pretty straight forward:
Processing center: NSC
PD: JAN 27 2005 non perm which got approved just in time for July 07 fiasco.
I-485: July 07 filer
RFE in Nov 2008 (immunizations for wife, she had taken certain waivers due to pregnancy --- and Employment verification for myself)
Approval: Today (March 8th 2010)
Congrats
more...
bsbawa10
08-21 09:44 AM
I broke my politeness today.
My case was filed in Nebarska then tranferred to Texas then as soon as the priority date became current, last month, it was transferred to California.
I talked yesterday to customer service and it by chance got transferred to California Service Center where the officer told me that my case was transferred back to Texas Service Center on August 14, 2008. She also told me to call TSC to confirm it.
I called today the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) to confirm it and the lady tells me that the case is still in California and she has no more infomation about it. I told her about my call yesterday.
Lady: How could you have ever called CSC because their phone numbers are not public
Me: I called the same number and for some reason it got transferred to CSC.
Lady: Then you have already been told that your case has been transferred back on Aug 14, what do you need now ?
Me: The website does not show that. Plus the officer yesterday asked me to confirm it which you are not doing, you are just repeating my words about my conversation. There are so many inconsitencies . You told me just now that my case is still in California.
Lady: Can you please hold for a moment.
After hold:
Lady: I just talked to my supervisor, if the website says it is in California then it is California. Is there anything else I can help you with ?
Me: I do not understand "To speed up processing " clause in the reason to transfer it to california. It has been transferred from the center which is processing 485 applications to the center which is not processing applications. So the clause "To speed up processing" is so inconsistent.
Lady: Sir, we cannot tell you the reason why do we transfers
Me: But you have already told me the reason in the written notice as "To speed up processing"
Lady: It is not "To speed up processing " it is "for processing". Is there anything else that I can help you with ?
Me: I hang up the phone.
My case was filed in Nebarska then tranferred to Texas then as soon as the priority date became current, last month, it was transferred to California.
I talked yesterday to customer service and it by chance got transferred to California Service Center where the officer told me that my case was transferred back to Texas Service Center on August 14, 2008. She also told me to call TSC to confirm it.
I called today the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) to confirm it and the lady tells me that the case is still in California and she has no more infomation about it. I told her about my call yesterday.
Lady: How could you have ever called CSC because their phone numbers are not public
Me: I called the same number and for some reason it got transferred to CSC.
Lady: Then you have already been told that your case has been transferred back on Aug 14, what do you need now ?
Me: The website does not show that. Plus the officer yesterday asked me to confirm it which you are not doing, you are just repeating my words about my conversation. There are so many inconsitencies . You told me just now that my case is still in California.
Lady: Can you please hold for a moment.
After hold:
Lady: I just talked to my supervisor, if the website says it is in California then it is California. Is there anything else I can help you with ?
Me: I do not understand "To speed up processing " clause in the reason to transfer it to california. It has been transferred from the center which is processing 485 applications to the center which is not processing applications. So the clause "To speed up processing" is so inconsistent.
Lady: Sir, we cannot tell you the reason why do we transfers
Me: But you have already told me the reason in the written notice as "To speed up processing"
Lady: It is not "To speed up processing " it is "for processing". Is there anything else that I can help you with ?
Me: I hang up the phone.
2010 love poems shakespeare.
amoschid
07-18 04:01 PM
thanks for the answer buddy
1) Yes, 140K includes primary applicant,spouse and minor children.
woaaah.. that's a very little number.... :p
2) It means India or any other country can be alloted upto 9800 green card per Fiscal Year, again this number includes spouse and children.
i see... thanks for the explanation,
this part still confused me though:
if i divide 140000 / 9800 = 14.28
that's only 14 countries, how was that suppose to work ?
also... let's use Japan & India again for example:
- suppose that India already used up to 9800 GC, and Japan only use 1500,
the 8300 GC (9800-1500) will remain unused ?
thanks again for the answer :D
1) Yes, 140K includes primary applicant,spouse and minor children.
woaaah.. that's a very little number.... :p
2) It means India or any other country can be alloted upto 9800 green card per Fiscal Year, again this number includes spouse and children.
i see... thanks for the explanation,
this part still confused me though:
if i divide 140000 / 9800 = 14.28
that's only 14 countries, how was that suppose to work ?
also... let's use Japan & India again for example:
- suppose that India already used up to 9800 GC, and Japan only use 1500,
the 8300 GC (9800-1500) will remain unused ?
thanks again for the answer :D
more...
FredG
December 31st, 2004, 07:13 AM
You don't go for easy subjects, do you? Glass is tough, and you did well. But if you keep this up, it will cost you $3,000 to replace your wife's wardrobe!
Just a few thoughts coming from very limited experience. Aqua reflectors might disguise or mute the specular highlights, which is always the toughest part on glass. If you want the rims lit less (personal preference - I think these look fine), you could bounce off one of the cards rather than the ceiling. Another interesting way to shoot glass is to put it on a glass surface, and have the light source coming from below with a black background. But then you couldn't have staggered height arrangement like you have here.
Just a few thoughts coming from very limited experience. Aqua reflectors might disguise or mute the specular highlights, which is always the toughest part on glass. If you want the rims lit less (personal preference - I think these look fine), you could bounce off one of the cards rather than the ceiling. Another interesting way to shoot glass is to put it on a glass surface, and have the light source coming from below with a black background. But then you couldn't have staggered height arrangement like you have here.
hair love poems shakespeare. love poems pictures. love
cinqsit
09-16 12:37 PM
i read somewhere on the forums that fbi name check and fingerprinting checks are two different checks carried out separately.
fbi name check
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/nationalnamecheck.htm
fbi finger printing
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/fprequest.htm
fbi name check
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/nationalnamecheck.htm
fbi finger printing
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/fprequest.htm
more...
phillyag
01-22 10:16 PM
DO we guys have a plan, a project ?
How we want to approach these critical subjects ?
How are we using the funds ???
The reason why I am not contributing is I dont know where the money will go or is goin right now ????
How we want to approach these critical subjects ?
How are we using the funds ???
The reason why I am not contributing is I dont know where the money will go or is goin right now ????
hot his works involving love.
smartboy75
07-09 04:43 PM
Well the lawyer representing the new company believes that without a copy of 140
1. that, they cannot do a H1B transfer.
2. that, I cannot do EAD extension when it expires in October 2008.
Why r u doing an h1 transfer ??? why can't u invoke AC21.....??
1. that, they cannot do a H1B transfer.
2. that, I cannot do EAD extension when it expires in October 2008.
Why r u doing an h1 transfer ??? why can't u invoke AC21.....??
more...
house want to find a love poem?
md2003
04-02 09:35 AM
I see each Attroney has different opinion on PD retaing when previous employer cancel the i140.
Rajiv Khanna -- He always thinks we can carry PD.
Murthy -- Every week she gives different answers
Mathew oh --- He gave different answers
Susan --- She thinks We can carry PD. But i heard only one conference call.
Not sure which one is correct.
Rajiv Khanna -- He always thinks we can carry PD.
Murthy -- Every week she gives different answers
Mathew oh --- He gave different answers
Susan --- She thinks We can carry PD. But i heard only one conference call.
Not sure which one is correct.
tattoo William Shakespeare#39;s works
STAmisha
07-08 06:38 PM
I guess you can apply for 2 140's
more...
pictures William Shakespeare love poems
hopefulgc
10-09 06:45 PM
please post your wedding pictures... if y'all tie the knot :D:D:D
Marry me...i like funny people......
/thread
Marry me...i like funny people......
/thread
dresses love poems by william
raminmd
09-15 01:11 PM
I would like to think that there are lots of members who are interested in participating in campaigns like this. I participate in most of IV campaigns and have sent flowers and called all reps for 5882. This is a campaign that I would be interested in participating in. If you are going to chat about this on IV chat (which many members cannot access because of restrictions), then please post the transcript and summary here so that we can at least understand the viewpoints of the participants and the action plan.
more...
makeup Love Poems amp; Sonnets of William Shakespeare Close
BharatPremi
12-05 03:58 PM
If you are moving to the Tri State Area - we will give you a red carpet welcome into our chapter :)
Thanks but I'm not moving in that area.
Thanks but I'm not moving in that area.
girlfriend love poems book. love poems
sapota
08-24 02:53 PM
Unconfirmed reports say that PP for EB3 will be introduced before PP for EB2. True?
Why would they discriminate ?
Why would they discriminate ?
hairstyles love poems shakespeare
met3259
07-18 05:07 PM
What is FB of 226,000 ?
see above
see above
akred
05-26 07:27 PM
I'm puzzled that there has been a slow reaction to the Bernie Sander's killer amendment that was disguised as a scholarship fund which has always been there and has benefited many Americans and the National Science Foundation. None of the faxes have been amended neither have the emails, we're asking for good things which are only likely to benefit a few but leave many others in peril. We need to find a way to cushion the effect of this amendment and at the same time highlight that the H1 program is not what it has been vilified to be.
Point is, if IV attains its goals on EB visas, there will still be many members affected by Bernie Sander's amendment. Of what use will visa number availability be to someone whose non H1-B dependent employer makes an economic decision to lay them off as they can longer afford to spend $250,000 a year + attorney fees renewing 50 H1-B's ? Given that this person would instantly be out of status (and find it difficult to find an employer rushing to spend $5k right away), the individual would have no recourse also given that they would not be eligible for a Z visa. Can someone help me understand why sticking to an old though good strategy and message without slightly adapting it to the current reality holds good promise for those in limbo by paying no attention to the effects of the Sander's amendment (pending at BEC, beyond 6th year renewal, I-140 not filed as of May 21st 2007 etc)
1. Any H1B issues affect employers more than the employees, so employers will make an issue out of any onerous requirement.
2. Any H1B fee is to be paid by the employer and is viewed as a tax and cost of doing business by the employer. Like any tax, it will mean cutbacks in other areas possibly existing charitable contributions to education or some such non essential cost.
I would expect Compete America and employers to speak up if they feel they would be affected by any H1B taxes.
Point is, if IV attains its goals on EB visas, there will still be many members affected by Bernie Sander's amendment. Of what use will visa number availability be to someone whose non H1-B dependent employer makes an economic decision to lay them off as they can longer afford to spend $250,000 a year + attorney fees renewing 50 H1-B's ? Given that this person would instantly be out of status (and find it difficult to find an employer rushing to spend $5k right away), the individual would have no recourse also given that they would not be eligible for a Z visa. Can someone help me understand why sticking to an old though good strategy and message without slightly adapting it to the current reality holds good promise for those in limbo by paying no attention to the effects of the Sander's amendment (pending at BEC, beyond 6th year renewal, I-140 not filed as of May 21st 2007 etc)
1. Any H1B issues affect employers more than the employees, so employers will make an issue out of any onerous requirement.
2. Any H1B fee is to be paid by the employer and is viewed as a tax and cost of doing business by the employer. Like any tax, it will mean cutbacks in other areas possibly existing charitable contributions to education or some such non essential cost.
I would expect Compete America and employers to speak up if they feel they would be affected by any H1B taxes.
YesWeWillGet
09-11 01:40 PM
gc_check and a_yaja - I really appreciate your feedback and thank you.
I was thinking that I can get the F1 > Opt > H1 > File 485 thru EB2 Since my spouse's 485 is stuck in mud with priority dated 2003 EB3 category. So, I was wondering that can I have file my own 485 EB2 parallel to my spouse EB3. I would really appreciate if you could provide guidence or alternative approach. Once again, thank you for your thoughts.
Thanks,
I was thinking that I can get the F1 > Opt > H1 > File 485 thru EB2 Since my spouse's 485 is stuck in mud with priority dated 2003 EB3 category. So, I was wondering that can I have file my own 485 EB2 parallel to my spouse EB3. I would really appreciate if you could provide guidence or alternative approach. Once again, thank you for your thoughts.
Thanks,
0 comments:
Post a Comment