ashpoor
05-20 11:25 AM
Hi
I want to transfer my H1-b from a consultant company to a non-profilt organization which is offering me a full time job. I haven't resigned my job at consultant company yet. The LCA process is going on with new non-profilt organisation and then they are going to apply for H-1B petition soon. I am worried if the consultant company will cancel my visa as soon as I resign and that would cause issues for the H-1b transfer. Please advice when is it safe time to resign and start my new job.
I want to transfer my H1-b from a consultant company to a non-profilt organization which is offering me a full time job. I haven't resigned my job at consultant company yet. The LCA process is going on with new non-profilt organisation and then they are going to apply for H-1B petition soon. I am worried if the consultant company will cancel my visa as soon as I resign and that would cause issues for the H-1b transfer. Please advice when is it safe time to resign and start my new job.
wallpaper how to do 80s hairstyles.
anilsal
01-20 08:53 PM
At this time, try the best you can.
Only when you get an RFE, do you have to provide employment verification letters etc.
Only when you get an RFE, do you have to provide employment verification letters etc.
mihird
01-05 12:37 AM
http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/04/news/economy/jobs_outlook/index.htm?postversion=2007010416
Interesting article....but no direct talk of H1-B or skilled worker immigration reforms etc.
The author of this article is Chris Isidore...I tried looking at the CNN site if there was a way of reaching him by email...but couldn't find any..
If we could get to him, maybe he would be willing to write a part 2 to this article highlighting the broken skilled worker immigration system..
Interesting article....but no direct talk of H1-B or skilled worker immigration reforms etc.
The author of this article is Chris Isidore...I tried looking at the CNN site if there was a way of reaching him by email...but couldn't find any..
If we could get to him, maybe he would be willing to write a part 2 to this article highlighting the broken skilled worker immigration system..
2011 What it does have to do with,
hoolahoous
11-17 12:21 AM
yes they take all 10. I think she will be fine
more...
a_yaja
06-22 09:51 AM
I am having a hard time to write anything on the back of the photes as required. I know a softer pencil should do. But have to hunt down one in this computer age. Any other tricks? Thanks.
Walmart or any other office/ school supply store sells them pretty cheap.
Walmart or any other office/ school supply store sells them pretty cheap.
gxr
11-23 07:16 PM
Got LUD on I-485 one month after EAD/AP approval. What could this mean?
I got a soft LUD with no change in case status on I-485. PD is July 2006.
-gxr
I got a soft LUD with no change in case status on I-485. PD is July 2006.
-gxr
more...
Blog Feeds
05-18 11:10 AM
Well I stand corrected. Last night I reported that Rima Fakih was born in the US to immigrant parents. That's what the one biography I could find that listed her birth place actually said. But a day is a long time in the news cycle and we know a lot more about America's newest sweetheart. She was, in fact, born in Lebanon and immigrated as a child. The charming Rima is a graduate of the University of Michigan-Dearborn and is hoping to attend law school when her reign is over. Perhaps a career as an immigration lawyer?
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/immigrant-of-the-day-rima-fakih-miss-usa.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/immigrant-of-the-day-rima-fakih-miss-usa.html)
2010 hot how to do 80s hairstyles.
aqueelmirza
10-26 02:38 AM
Hi
I am working on Windows 7 based application development in Silverlight. I have not been able to find a way to play a an audio file in windows 7 phone. I have been googling it since past few days but i could not get any solution of that. There is a class in C# with name SoundPlayer but i guess its not available in Windows 7 Phone.
Can anyone please help?
I am working on Windows 7 based application development in Silverlight. I have not been able to find a way to play a an audio file in windows 7 phone. I have been googling it since past few days but i could not get any solution of that. There is a class in C# with name SoundPlayer but i guess its not available in Windows 7 Phone.
Can anyone please help?
more...
harry_78
03-20 03:11 AM
Dear All,
Today i read that their is a new law prohibiting the employers from filling multiple applications for the same employee.
I have applied with 2 companies,as an employee , i have two different employers, who will file application for me.
Is it against the current law or ?
Pls help me asap , so that i can stop atleast one of the employer , if needed to file the application.
Thanks
Harry
Today i read that their is a new law prohibiting the employers from filling multiple applications for the same employee.
I have applied with 2 companies,as an employee , i have two different employers, who will file application for me.
Is it against the current law or ?
Pls help me asap , so that i can stop atleast one of the employer , if needed to file the application.
Thanks
Harry
hair 80s Hairstyles Hair styles of
svdcpa
06-06 10:45 AM
i am a cpa and my labor certification still gathering dust at the dallas backlog proc center. i did received the 45-day letter march 2005.
more...
webr
07-02 07:14 PM
Edison residents, officials outraged by Time magazine column about Indian immigrants | NJ.com (http://www.nj.com/news/local/index.ssf/2010/07/edison_residents_officials_out.html)
hot house 80s Hairstyles How To
varesident
01-07 11:37 AM
I am planning to visit India soon. I have my AP and an expired F1 visa.
I haven't been to India since I got my H1 approved; so I don't have an H1 visa stamp on my passport at all. My I-797 is approved until 2010.
Can you please advise if I should get my passport stamped with my H1 or should I be ok with my AP?
Thanks.
I haven't been to India since I got my H1 approved; so I don't have an H1 visa stamp on my passport at all. My I-797 is approved until 2010.
Can you please advise if I should get my passport stamped with my H1 or should I be ok with my AP?
Thanks.
more...
house how to do 80s hairstyles.
Silvermanto
05-26 06:23 AM
Hi I'm a US citizen and have around 15k or less credit card debt. All government loans were paid off. Something happened three and a half years ago in my home town and I had to leave Washington state and took care of it. So my question is: it's has been 3 and a half year and I'm heading back to washington state for short visit.
1. I'm sure the debt did gall into collection agency. Will it go to court?
2. Since I had been gone since 2007 and will there be a warrant on me since I didn't appear to court (if there was one)
3. I will be entering Vancouver bc airport then to Seattle by driving. I'm afraid I will get caught for warrant at the border.
Hopefully someone can answer my questions and thanks for the help in advance.
1. I'm sure the debt did gall into collection agency. Will it go to court?
2. Since I had been gone since 2007 and will there be a warrant on me since I didn't appear to court (if there was one)
3. I will be entering Vancouver bc airport then to Seattle by driving. I'm afraid I will get caught for warrant at the border.
Hopefully someone can answer my questions and thanks for the help in advance.
tattoo how to do 80s hairstyles.
Blog Feeds
09-08 07:20 PM
The most frequent question that we receive is �How do I choose a good immigration attorney?� Our response is �Why settle for �good�? Read on. There are websites for finding excellent hotels, wonderful restaurants and great physicians. How about a site for choosing an attorney? See http://www.avvo.com During the past year, Avvo has emerged as the premier site for selecting an attorney. Avvo, short for avvocaat (Italian for attorney), is gaining not only in popularity but in usefulness. Great immigration attorneys will tell you that by the time 30% of potential clients consult with them, some incompetent attorney or �consultant�...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/09/let-avvo-help-you-select-a-great-immigration-attorney.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/09/let-avvo-help-you-select-a-great-immigration-attorney.html)
more...
pictures got2b - 80s Hairstyles are In
cmfirst
07-19 04:25 PM
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2007/db20070718_012859.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index _businessweek+exclusives
dresses How To Do 80s Hairstyles For
r_joe
02-08 09:48 PM
I am applying for an H-1B extension. The prevailing wage determined by icert is less than my actual salary by about $30,000. Will there be a problem if my salary is much higher than the prevailing wage?
more...
makeup how to do 80s hairstyles.
lkapildev
07-17 01:30 PM
My attorney filed I-140 on July 5th. No receipt yet. No news also.
He said he cannot send it to TSC, instead he mailed it to NSC. Is that the standard filing place?
Do you have a notice for your standalone I-140 filed at NSC on or after July5th.
He said he cannot send it to TSC, instead he mailed it to NSC. Is that the standard filing place?
Do you have a notice for your standalone I-140 filed at NSC on or after July5th.
girlfriend how to do 80s hairstyles.
gk_2000
04-06 04:30 PM
Hmm fresh new ID?
hairstyles Michael Jackson 80s jheri curl
saibaba
12-18 02:48 PM
I131, APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT
Current Status: We mailed you a notice requesting additional evidence.
hi friends...
I got RFE on my wife's 131...
Last time we took our photos at Ritz Camera...they accepted mine but held her case due to these photo issue...
My attorney received this RFE and he scanned it for me..
Do we have to submit the entire app now?
advise me
Thanks
Current Status: We mailed you a notice requesting additional evidence.
hi friends...
I got RFE on my wife's 131...
Last time we took our photos at Ritz Camera...they accepted mine but held her case due to these photo issue...
My attorney received this RFE and he scanned it for me..
Do we have to submit the entire app now?
advise me
Thanks
linnil
03-15 02:48 AM
I work for one of the biggest software companies which deals with PERM cases a lot. However, my case got audit notice and I'm really confused now.
My PD is Jan-19-2009 and I received my audit notice in 11/2009, and we replied in 12/2009. I just learnt today that it might be very likely to take more than 2 years to clear such a case and there is possibility to be denied.
I'm very worried that I might lose my PD, is it really true that my case won't be cleared for at least another year?
:mad:
My PD is Jan-19-2009 and I received my audit notice in 11/2009, and we replied in 12/2009. I just learnt today that it might be very likely to take more than 2 years to clear such a case and there is possibility to be denied.
I'm very worried that I might lose my PD, is it really true that my case won't be cleared for at least another year?
:mad:
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment