rolrblade
03-06 10:19 AM
Hi,
I am currently doing my MBA here on a H4 visa. I want to know if I would be eligible to apply for the H1 Visa ( in the 20,000 quota) without converting to
F1 status. Please advise.
Thanks in advance...
You woulkd be eligible provided you have completed your MBA. If you are still working on it then you would not be considered an advanced Degree HOLDER.
I am currently doing my MBA here on a H4 visa. I want to know if I would be eligible to apply for the H1 Visa ( in the 20,000 quota) without converting to
F1 status. Please advise.
Thanks in advance...
You woulkd be eligible provided you have completed your MBA. If you are still working on it then you would not be considered an advanced Degree HOLDER.
wallpaper tags: dark park night spooky
Blog Feeds
06-28 03:20 PM
I just had a consultation this week with an engineer working on an H-1B for several years with one of America's best known companies. He's got an unusual skill set that makes him highly valuable to the company and he is a good candidate for eventually getting a green card, something he and his company both want to see happen. Unfortunately, he's in a green card category that will be backlogged for several yaers. But this fellow is facing a real problem. He has three teenage children and is facing paying out of state tuition costs for the universities in...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/wa.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/wa.html)
Domino
11-03 02:14 AM
Hello,
If one has EB1 (Extraordinary Ability) Pending, is one allowed to stay in the US until the case is decided? I know it may takes at least an year for the final approval...
If one has EB1 (Extraordinary Ability) Pending, is one allowed to stay in the US until the case is decided? I know it may takes at least an year for the final approval...
2011 Scary night landscape
chi_shark
06-11 02:24 AM
ladies and gents,
has there ever been any regulation issued by the USCIS for the AC21 law? i know about the yates memo in 2005. however, even that memo says that there will be a regulation coming in... so was that ever published? i just want to find out once and FOR ALL whether uscis will allow me to do self-employment in a same or similar job and how prepared should i be for zealous immigration officers sending me way-too-detailed RFEs for stuff related to self employment... i contacted a few lawyers, the only one who was encouraging enough for my taste said that she/he will charge me my arm, leg and possibly an eye or ear... so whats out there already?
has there ever been any regulation issued by the USCIS for the AC21 law? i know about the yates memo in 2005. however, even that memo says that there will be a regulation coming in... so was that ever published? i just want to find out once and FOR ALL whether uscis will allow me to do self-employment in a same or similar job and how prepared should i be for zealous immigration officers sending me way-too-detailed RFEs for stuff related to self employment... i contacted a few lawyers, the only one who was encouraging enough for my taste said that she/he will charge me my arm, leg and possibly an eye or ear... so whats out there already?
more...
praveen2008
04-26 10:28 AM
Hello,
I am currently working for employer A on a 6th year H1 with approved 140 petition. MY current H1 is expiring June 2010. In the meantime I got an good offer from employer B who applied for H1 transfer using my approved 140 petition and I got an RFE. My question is god forbid , that if my H1 transfer petition is denied with employer B , can I continue working for Current employer A and if he can file for my H1 extension, come June? Also would there be any recursions, considering i already applied the H1 transfer now with the new employer ?
Please advice and i thank you in advance
I am currently working for employer A on a 6th year H1 with approved 140 petition. MY current H1 is expiring June 2010. In the meantime I got an good offer from employer B who applied for H1 transfer using my approved 140 petition and I got an RFE. My question is god forbid , that if my H1 transfer petition is denied with employer B , can I continue working for Current employer A and if he can file for my H1 extension, come June? Also would there be any recursions, considering i already applied the H1 transfer now with the new employer ?
Please advice and i thank you in advance
yabadaba
06-20 08:16 AM
indianabacklog:
when did u get ur fingerprinting notice? if u got it on 15th of may and it was scheduled for 2 weeks later... u lost out on 2 weeks...what i am asking is if its possible to walk in on the 16th and get the fingerprinting done?
when did u get ur fingerprinting notice? if u got it on 15th of may and it was scheduled for 2 weeks later... u lost out on 2 weeks...what i am asking is if its possible to walk in on the 16th and get the fingerprinting done?
more...
ThackeG67
07-29 03:53 AM
Me too I'm looking forward to it.
2010 trees, moonlight
ames
03-04 09:18 PM
Hello,
I am newly registered here - although I have often turned to your tutorials over the years in Flash as I continue update my skills.
Just thought I would give it a go and enter your latest contest. :)
Here is my self portrait entry illustrated in Flash...
I am newly registered here - although I have often turned to your tutorials over the years in Flash as I continue update my skills.
Just thought I would give it a go and enter your latest contest. :)
Here is my self portrait entry illustrated in Flash...
more...
Blog Feeds
12-10 09:30 AM
Here's the link. Bad news in the family categories as much of the advancement of the last two years has been reversed with major retrogressions. The only good news was a ten month jump for Mexico EB-3 cases. Family 1st- 13 month retrogression for most countries to January 2005; six month advance for Dominican Republic to January 2005; one week advance for Mexico. Family 2A - world numbers retrogress 20 months to January 2008; Mexico retrogresses five years to April 2005. Family 2B - world numbers retrogress more than two years to April 2003; Dominican Republic advances two months to...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/january-2011-visa-bulletin-rundown.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/january-2011-visa-bulletin-rundown.html)
hair scary trees at night with
sunandoghosh
08-29 04:50 PM
Hi Friends,
My wife is going to apply for H4 Visa soon in India.
Do I need to send her I-134 Affidavit of Support.
I have heard conflicting opinions.
Pls let me know.
Thxs in advance. Rgs S
My wife is going to apply for H4 Visa soon in India.
Do I need to send her I-134 Affidavit of Support.
I have heard conflicting opinions.
Pls let me know.
Thxs in advance. Rgs S
more...
yganreddy
09-16 12:19 AM
You can do it for your friends if you can able to support them while they are in US.
Can we sponsor visitor visa for friends or is it only for relatives?.
Can we sponsor visitor visa for friends or is it only for relatives?.
hot mystery middot; Scary middot; Trees
perm2gc
09-07 02:03 PM
Personally I agree with you. On the other hand, there could be some folks who like this sh*t. :D :D It is just an FYI for them.;):D :D :D
more...
house wanna travel around the
ags123
10-06 03:14 PM
Last month dates were 7 Jan 2005.
This month dates are 22 Jan 2005.
Still the reported Jan 2005 approvals(, IV ) etc are less than 5.
Not sure whats happening to these
New topic for discussion while waiting for friday bulletin :)
This month dates are 22 Jan 2005.
Still the reported Jan 2005 approvals(, IV ) etc are less than 5.
Not sure whats happening to these
New topic for discussion while waiting for friday bulletin :)
tattoo I took a picture of a tree
techbuyer77
06-17 06:01 PM
I am eb3 row, i-485 filed on 6/1/7
Can I expect an approval based on nsc and tsc being march 2007?
Like in 3 months?:o
Can I expect an approval based on nsc and tsc being march 2007?
Like in 3 months?:o
more...
pictures SCARY TREE AT NIGHT (click
Circus123
04-04 11:21 PM
This article is very interesting. The legal immigration dropped even though the applications flooded in last year.
Check these links out!
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jVzJBVTd1tawK227QQZltW_jigzwD8VRA5JO1
Interesting data statistics:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/LPR_FR_2007.pdf
Check these links out!
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jVzJBVTd1tawK227QQZltW_jigzwD8VRA5JO1
Interesting data statistics:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/LPR_FR_2007.pdf
dresses scary trees at night. Grove of spooky trees in; Grove of spooky trees in
Blog Feeds
11-19 08:10 AM
Lots of activity to report. Congressional Hispanic Caucus leaders met this week with President Obama who said he wants a vote during the Lame Duck and would work the phones to round up votes. Harry Reid tweeted today that he'll offer the DREAM Act as a standalone bill which will hopefully help bring along a few of the "procedural" no voters from last September who indicated they like the DREAM Act but didn't believe in tacking it on to a budget bill. In the mean time, advocacy groups are apparently still arguing about the final language including answering whether college...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/11/stage-being-set-for-dream-act-vote.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/11/stage-being-set-for-dream-act-vote.html)
more...
makeup Spooky-Trees-20100425
sarkarsu
01-02 04:43 PM
Hi,
My wife has a stamped H4 visa & I-94 both are valid through Oct 16th 2008. We have applied H1B for her which got approved somewhere in May 2007.
The Approved H1B documents along with new I-94 is with her employer.
We have some issues with the employer so we are not sure that we can get the H1B & I-94 documents from her employer.
As we also applied for EAD,In the mean time if we receive her EAD card and Travel Document for my wife.
Do we still need her H1B and new I-94 documents from her employer for any reason?
Any advise is well appreciated.
Thanks
My wife has a stamped H4 visa & I-94 both are valid through Oct 16th 2008. We have applied H1B for her which got approved somewhere in May 2007.
The Approved H1B documents along with new I-94 is with her employer.
We have some issues with the employer so we are not sure that we can get the H1B & I-94 documents from her employer.
As we also applied for EAD,In the mean time if we receive her EAD card and Travel Document for my wife.
Do we still need her H1B and new I-94 documents from her employer for any reason?
Any advise is well appreciated.
Thanks
girlfriend scary trees at night. SCARY TREE; SCARY TREE. Therbo. Mar 25, 02:42 PM
kirupa
06-25 08:01 PM
Hey Marigold,
I really don't know much about Poser. Post in the good old Flashkit Swift 3D forum: board.flashkit.com/board/...forumid=20 (http://board.flashkit.com/board/forumdisplay.php?forumid=20)
I'm sure the good guys there will be able to help you out!
I really don't know much about Poser. Post in the good old Flashkit Swift 3D forum: board.flashkit.com/board/...forumid=20 (http://board.flashkit.com/board/forumdisplay.php?forumid=20)
I'm sure the good guys there will be able to help you out!
hairstyles scary trees at night. Spooky Trees; Spooky Trees. pocketrockets
myuserid
01-29 08:36 PM
I am on H4 visa, based in Georgia. Did anyone get �Change of Maiden Name to Married Name� done on passport from Indian Consulate Houston, TX.
Can anyone tell me what am I supposed to write in the �Surname� column in the new online application form ? The old application had 2 columns, 1 for maiden name and the other for Desired Name, but the new online application form has only 1 Surname column. I am confused as to what should I write � my maiden name or my married name. I do have the notarization done on the affidavit form. Does this give me the right to write my married name ? Which name should I sign in the application- maiden or married name?
AlsoI have heard that anybody submitting �Change of Maiden Name to Married Name� application in person, to Indian Consulate Houston, has to collect the new passport at the counter in person, the passport will not be mailed to him/her. The passport is only sent by mail to those who have sent the documents to Indian Consulate Houston by mail.
Is it true?
Can anyone tell me what am I supposed to write in the �Surname� column in the new online application form ? The old application had 2 columns, 1 for maiden name and the other for Desired Name, but the new online application form has only 1 Surname column. I am confused as to what should I write � my maiden name or my married name. I do have the notarization done on the affidavit form. Does this give me the right to write my married name ? Which name should I sign in the application- maiden or married name?
AlsoI have heard that anybody submitting �Change of Maiden Name to Married Name� application in person, to Indian Consulate Houston, has to collect the new passport at the counter in person, the passport will not be mailed to him/her. The passport is only sent by mail to those who have sent the documents to Indian Consulate Houston by mail.
Is it true?
Phoenixpals
04-11 03:02 PM
Hi,
I am applying for Citizenship after completing 4 years and 9 months as a Permanent Resident in US.
Can any one please let me know as what is the processing time to get the Citizenship after I apply?
Also I have planned to move to a different State after I apply for Citizenship.
Please let me know whether it fine to move to a different address after applying for Citizenship? Else is this move not advisable?
Does this address change delay my Citizenship processing time?
Appreciate your guidance.
Thanks.
I am applying for Citizenship after completing 4 years and 9 months as a Permanent Resident in US.
Can any one please let me know as what is the processing time to get the Citizenship after I apply?
Also I have planned to move to a different State after I apply for Citizenship.
Please let me know whether it fine to move to a different address after applying for Citizenship? Else is this move not advisable?
Does this address change delay my Citizenship processing time?
Appreciate your guidance.
Thanks.
Macaca
07-29 06:14 PM
Partisans Gone Wild (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701691.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter (neverett@princeton.edu) Washington Post, July 29, 2007
Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
A funny thing is happening in American politics: The fiercest battle is no longer between the left and the right but between partisanship and bipartisanship. The Bush administration, which has been notorious for playing to its hard-right base, has started reaching across the aisle, with its admirable immigration bill (even though it failed), with its new push for a diplomatic strategy toward North Korea and Iran, and above all with its choice of three seasoned moderates for important positions: Robert M. Gates as defense secretary, John D. Negroponte as deputy secretary of state and Robert B. Zoellick as World Bank president.
On the Democratic side, the opening last month of a new foreign policy think tank, the Center for a New American Security, struck a number of bipartisan notes. The Princeton Project on National Security, which I co-directed with fellow Princeton professor John Ikenberry, drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas, some of which have been endorsed by such presidential candidates as John McCain, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat. Barack Obama is running on a return to a far more bipartisan approach to policy and a far less partisan approach to politics. (Full disclosure: I have contributed to Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns.)
In short, some sanity may actually be returning to American politics. Perhaps the most interesting development is the belated realization by the Bush administration that its insistence on an ABC ("anything but Clinton") policy has proved deeply damaging.
But the predominant political reaction to this modest outbreak of common sense has been virulent opposition, from both right and left. The true believers in the Bush revolution are furious. John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded the alarm in February with a broadside against the agreement that the State Department and its Asian negotiating partners had reached with North Korea, warning President Bush that it contradicted "fundamental premises" of his foreign policy. Next came yet another intra-administration battle over Iran policy, with David Wurmser, a top vice presidential aide, telling a conservative audience in May that Vice President Cheney believed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strategy of at least talking with Iranian officials about Iraq was failing.
From the left, many progressives have responded to the foreign policy failures of the Bush administration by trying to purge their fellow liberals. Tufts professor Tony Smith published a blistering essay on Iraq in The Washington Post several months ago, attacking not neoconservative policymakers but liberal thinkers who had, he argued, become enablers for the neocons and thus were the real villains. More recently, the author Michael Lind wrote in the Nation that the "greatest threat to liberal internationalism comes not from without -- from neoconservatives, realists and isolationists who reject the liberal internationalist tradition as a whole -- but from within." He singled out Ikenberry, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, James Lindsay of the University of Texas at Austin and me. These "heretics," he said, "are as dangerous as the infidels." Heretics? Infidels? Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.
In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: "Hillary isn't actually a woman, she's a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine." Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal's Pentecost conference, in which he urged Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: "If . . . you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing." Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where "mainstream media" bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves.
Students of American politics argue that partisan attacks have their own cycles. George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of placing results over party. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the political advantages of take-no-prisoners, call-every-critic-a-traitor patriotism proved irresistible. And the political and media attack industry that has grown up as a result has too much at stake to give in to the calmer, blander beat of bipartisanship.
It's time, then, for a bipartisan backlash. Politicians who think we need bargaining to fix the crises we face should appear side by side with a friend from the other party -- the consistent policy of the admirably bipartisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Candidates who accept that the winner of the 2008 election is going to need a lot of friends across the aisle -- not least to get out of Iraq -- should make a point of finding something to praise in the other party's platform. And as for the rest of us, the consumers of a steady diet of political vitriol, every time we read a partisan attack, we should shoot -- or at least spam -- the messenger.
Partisans Gone Wild, Part II: Web Rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301083.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter, August 3, 2007
Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
A funny thing is happening in American politics: The fiercest battle is no longer between the left and the right but between partisanship and bipartisanship. The Bush administration, which has been notorious for playing to its hard-right base, has started reaching across the aisle, with its admirable immigration bill (even though it failed), with its new push for a diplomatic strategy toward North Korea and Iran, and above all with its choice of three seasoned moderates for important positions: Robert M. Gates as defense secretary, John D. Negroponte as deputy secretary of state and Robert B. Zoellick as World Bank president.
On the Democratic side, the opening last month of a new foreign policy think tank, the Center for a New American Security, struck a number of bipartisan notes. The Princeton Project on National Security, which I co-directed with fellow Princeton professor John Ikenberry, drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas, some of which have been endorsed by such presidential candidates as John McCain, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat. Barack Obama is running on a return to a far more bipartisan approach to policy and a far less partisan approach to politics. (Full disclosure: I have contributed to Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns.)
In short, some sanity may actually be returning to American politics. Perhaps the most interesting development is the belated realization by the Bush administration that its insistence on an ABC ("anything but Clinton") policy has proved deeply damaging.
But the predominant political reaction to this modest outbreak of common sense has been virulent opposition, from both right and left. The true believers in the Bush revolution are furious. John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded the alarm in February with a broadside against the agreement that the State Department and its Asian negotiating partners had reached with North Korea, warning President Bush that it contradicted "fundamental premises" of his foreign policy. Next came yet another intra-administration battle over Iran policy, with David Wurmser, a top vice presidential aide, telling a conservative audience in May that Vice President Cheney believed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strategy of at least talking with Iranian officials about Iraq was failing.
From the left, many progressives have responded to the foreign policy failures of the Bush administration by trying to purge their fellow liberals. Tufts professor Tony Smith published a blistering essay on Iraq in The Washington Post several months ago, attacking not neoconservative policymakers but liberal thinkers who had, he argued, become enablers for the neocons and thus were the real villains. More recently, the author Michael Lind wrote in the Nation that the "greatest threat to liberal internationalism comes not from without -- from neoconservatives, realists and isolationists who reject the liberal internationalist tradition as a whole -- but from within." He singled out Ikenberry, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, James Lindsay of the University of Texas at Austin and me. These "heretics," he said, "are as dangerous as the infidels." Heretics? Infidels? Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.
In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: "Hillary isn't actually a woman, she's a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine." Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal's Pentecost conference, in which he urged Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: "If . . . you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing." Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where "mainstream media" bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves.
Students of American politics argue that partisan attacks have their own cycles. George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of placing results over party. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the political advantages of take-no-prisoners, call-every-critic-a-traitor patriotism proved irresistible. And the political and media attack industry that has grown up as a result has too much at stake to give in to the calmer, blander beat of bipartisanship.
It's time, then, for a bipartisan backlash. Politicians who think we need bargaining to fix the crises we face should appear side by side with a friend from the other party -- the consistent policy of the admirably bipartisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Candidates who accept that the winner of the 2008 election is going to need a lot of friends across the aisle -- not least to get out of Iraq -- should make a point of finding something to praise in the other party's platform. And as for the rest of us, the consumers of a steady diet of political vitriol, every time we read a partisan attack, we should shoot -- or at least spam -- the messenger.
Partisans Gone Wild, Part II: Web Rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301083.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter, August 3, 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment