stucklabor
08-14 04:31 PM
The call is being transcribed. We will post the transcript when it is ready.
wallpaper diva Patti LaBelle over a
kingpin60
07-16 03:53 PM
Hi everyone,
Here is my situation and I need URGENT help.
I am currently on L1-A for past 7 years (Visa expires Nov 07). During this span my company's attorney has unsuccessfully filed my I140 (twice was rejected at NSC and later TSC - due to 3 year degree and also my job description prior to transfer to US did not showed I have managerial/management function of a department). He refiled again this time with proper documentation and additional support letters from senior exec from my company.
I suspect he has been making mistakes in my filing and my time is running out. I am thinking of using my own money and hire another lawyer to file a fresh I140/485. Is this possible since I have already 2 pending I140; one at NSC under EB-1C and another at TSC under EB-3?
Please reply urgently if anyone has the answer to my question as I am running out of time.
Thanks in advance.
Here is my situation and I need URGENT help.
I am currently on L1-A for past 7 years (Visa expires Nov 07). During this span my company's attorney has unsuccessfully filed my I140 (twice was rejected at NSC and later TSC - due to 3 year degree and also my job description prior to transfer to US did not showed I have managerial/management function of a department). He refiled again this time with proper documentation and additional support letters from senior exec from my company.
I suspect he has been making mistakes in my filing and my time is running out. I am thinking of using my own money and hire another lawyer to file a fresh I140/485. Is this possible since I have already 2 pending I140; one at NSC under EB-1C and another at TSC under EB-3?
Please reply urgently if anyone has the answer to my question as I am running out of time.
Thanks in advance.
WillIBLucky
11-22 01:59 PM
Hello Gurus,
Can we change company based upon approved I140 and get a 3 H1B.
what happens if my previous employer cancels I140.
:confused: Well you should see "Enough is Enough" thread. YOu may find some answers. :)
Can we change company based upon approved I140 and get a 3 H1B.
what happens if my previous employer cancels I140.
:confused: Well you should see "Enough is Enough" thread. YOu may find some answers. :)
2011 pictures Patti LaBelle is
Becks
02-03 04:45 PM
I had a 221g in 2000 and submitted all the docs. I got response in 2002 (After 2 years :eek:) . I had just 10 months left on my H1 that time. So we will never know. But situation in 2000 was different. I am not discouraging you but telling how hard these 221gs will be. I hope its not that bad these days and you may get response soon.
Anyway, Good Luck.
Anyway, Good Luck.
more...
Blog Feeds
08-05 08:00 AM
Wingnut Alan Keyes says repealing the 14th Amendment is going too far. And lest wingnut readers of this blog (you know who you are) wave public opinion polls that seem to support this, I would remind you that the whole point of enshrining civil rights protections in the Constitution is precisely to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. If you would have put segregation up for a vote in my part of the world back in the 1950s, you would have found overwhelming support. The judge who tossed out the Proposition 8 referendum on same sex marriages in...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/another-shark-jumping-sign.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/another-shark-jumping-sign.html)
pscdk
01-20 08:35 PM
This is only for TSC...Hope they create similar intiative with NSC too.
more...
seeker
01-11 03:46 PM
Guys as I said earlier, lets start calling cornyn's office and plead for skil bill or interim I485 relief.
2010 Patti LaBelle sued for violent fight at Houston airport (Bodyguards beat
Blog Feeds
02-23 09:00 AM
Over more than the last 30 years, I�ve advised countless foreign businesses and investors seeking to establish operations in the United States. Many thrived, but some, regrettably, failed to survive. Often, the founders� inattentiveness to the requirements of U.S. immigration law has been a primary cause of rough beginnings or failures to launch. This blog post will offer best immigration practices and identify traps to avoid when a foreign firm or individual plans to start a business in America. 1. Respect the Law � It�s Not a Game. The U.S. is no doubt the world leader when it comes to...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2011/01/the-9-best-immigration-practices-for-us-inbound-businesses-entrepreneurs-and-investors.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2011/01/the-9-best-immigration-practices-for-us-inbound-businesses-entrepreneurs-and-investors.html)
more...
zymorian
05-11 01:26 AM
Hi,
I'm in the process of going through the naturalization process having filed the N-400 form.
However, I have a change of plans and would like to 'abandon' my naturalization application.
Would this affect any of my future applications? be it a future naturalization application or petition for a relative the green card.
Thanks for any advice as I can't seem to get a definite answer.
I'm in the process of going through the naturalization process having filed the N-400 form.
However, I have a change of plans and would like to 'abandon' my naturalization application.
Would this affect any of my future applications? be it a future naturalization application or petition for a relative the green card.
Thanks for any advice as I can't seem to get a definite answer.
hair Patti LaBelle Sued Bу West
gg123
03-13 08:35 PM
Not true. Please check with your lawyer for these type of queries.
more...
sansari
03-04 08:07 PM
My first H1 was from "Company A" back in 2001. Company A also sponsored me for my green card. In 2005 I transferred my H1 to Company B, however my green card was still sponsored with Company A. I have an approved I-140 and I am waiting on my PD to become current. My H1 is suppose to get renew in August of 2007, which will be through Company B.
I have heard that after 6 years renewal, your current H1 company should have sponsored you for green card in order to get the 7th year H1. And as you can see in my case that my previous company has sponsored me for my
H1 and not my current company.
Can someone put some light on this issue.
Thanks,
SHA
I have heard that after 6 years renewal, your current H1 company should have sponsored you for green card in order to get the 7th year H1. And as you can see in my case that my previous company has sponsored me for my
H1 and not my current company.
Can someone put some light on this issue.
Thanks,
SHA
hot images Patti LaBelle Wigs #39
Hassan11
06-06 03:02 PM
sorry, posted this under wrong category I don't know how to delete it.
I received a RFE regarding medical test because the Civil Surgeon didn't complete some of the forms properly. I replied bak to the RFE few days after I received it (within the allowed time).
my question is how many days does it take USCIS on average to look at my reply to the RFE and make a decision on my I-485 application (my PD is current as of June VB and been current for months now)
if USCIS does not make a decision and if PD retrogresses in July VB and I won't be current, does that mean that USCIS won't make a decision then untill my PD is current again???
Please advise. Thank you
I received a RFE regarding medical test because the Civil Surgeon didn't complete some of the forms properly. I replied bak to the RFE few days after I received it (within the allowed time).
my question is how many days does it take USCIS on average to look at my reply to the RFE and make a decision on my I-485 application (my PD is current as of June VB and been current for months now)
if USCIS does not make a decision and if PD retrogresses in July VB and I won't be current, does that mean that USCIS won't make a decision then untill my PD is current again???
Please advise. Thank you
more...
house involving Patti LaBelle
Adaam
01-30 11:57 PM
Just asking out of curiosity because when an illegal alien lives and possibly runs from cops from place to place for a period of time then they are qualifed for a green card and eventually citizenship.
Why would they become nice to them after a certain period of time? It is illegal.
Why would they become nice to them after a certain period of time? It is illegal.
tattoo Patti LaBelle Honored At The
ursosweet
09-25 11:47 AM
can anyone, who has adequate knowledge, tell me how does 485 move about in the USCIS?
I mean what happens after FP?
Do they work with your application only when the PD is current?
or they work on the application regardless of PD?
FBI namecheck starts after PD is current?
and when does a visa no. assigned?
too many questions...any takers?
thanks
I mean what happens after FP?
Do they work with your application only when the PD is current?
or they work on the application regardless of PD?
FBI namecheck starts after PD is current?
and when does a visa no. assigned?
too many questions...any takers?
thanks
more...
pictures Patti LaBelle
chanduv23
10-30 11:29 AM
Great pics, more to follow.
Here are some from mpadapa
http://www2.snapfish.com/share/p=967281193634848895/l=317986840/g=97458101/otsc=SYE/otsi=SALB
Here are some from mpadapa
http://www2.snapfish.com/share/p=967281193634848895/l=317986840/g=97458101/otsc=SYE/otsi=SALB
dresses Patti LaBelle Sued By West
karn.anand
10-29 01:58 AM
:pleased:
Thank you for your supprt,
Now i have upload a new image
Thank you for your supprt,
Now i have upload a new image
more...
makeup Richard King is suing Patti
Macaca
08-16 05:40 PM
Is the Senate Germane? Majority Leader Reid's Lament (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_19/procedural_politics/19719-1.html) By Don Wolfensberger | Roll Call, August 13, 2007
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
girlfriend Richard King sues Patti
Blog Feeds
05-30 12:30 PM
A traitorous American general hanged for aiding the British during the Revolutionary War -- one Benedict Arnold -- said rather cynically: "Law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained." This quote came to mind in scanning the latest developments in dysfunctional immigration: With a rider passed by the House to a defense appropriations bill, Congress is poised to approve the phased elimination of the U.S. military's "Don't Ask. Don't Tell" policy. House leaders champion its action as a long-overdue recognition of the civil rights of gay soldiers. Yet the civil rights of binational gay lovers -- trashed by the...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/05/immigration-policy-boldly-asserted-implausibly-maintained.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/05/immigration-policy-boldly-asserted-implausibly-maintained.html)
hairstyles Patti LaBelle Sued for Airport
CecilG
08-30 11:02 AM
My H1B Visa stamp expires in Jan 08 but H1B Status expires Sept 08. Is it too early to get a new H1B stamp 4 months before expiration of the H1B stamp I currently have.
I am planning to go to Ottawa now for a stamp that expires in Sept 08.
Thanks for your help.
I am planning to go to Ottawa now for a stamp that expires in Sept 08.
Thanks for your help.
trump_gc
04-11 01:41 PM
Since this is not criminal in nature, I dont think u will have much of an issue. But just for ur peace of mind, why dont u just call ur immigration lawyer and ask, i mean if u have one
gcpool
06-13 11:30 AM
The normal process I heard is that they start at the 70 day to complete it by the 90th day. So you can expect it from 70th day onwards.
No comments:
Post a Comment