cj4ualways
09-11 03:40 PM
Hi,
I am on H-1B with a company and have been through my 4years of H-1. Now they are saying that they might not be able to apply for my PR before the start of my 6th year of H-1 and are offering me the following option: Need to leave US and go back to India or any other country, will be paid US salary and then after one year will be brought back on a L-1A visa. Now my question is can they pay in US dollars while i am outside US and still be able to come back on L-1A visa? or do i need to change into local payroll?
I am on H-1B with a company and have been through my 4years of H-1. Now they are saying that they might not be able to apply for my PR before the start of my 6th year of H-1 and are offering me the following option: Need to leave US and go back to India or any other country, will be paid US salary and then after one year will be brought back on a L-1A visa. Now my question is can they pay in US dollars while i am outside US and still be able to come back on L-1A visa? or do i need to change into local payroll?
wallpaper Table Centerpiece Ideas
pgc10
02-21 02:38 PM
I have had my own house even before I-140 was filed. :)
yabadaba
10-05 06:08 PM
WOOOPS!! sorry
2011 table centerpiece ideas
panacea
07-18 02:29 PM
I don't think you can apply for extension....
more...
vinabath
04-06 12:06 AM
Iinteresting article:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1008366#PaperDownload
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1008366#PaperDownload
nonimmi
01-11 03:50 PM
Here you see some of the early adopters of AC21 rule asking similar questions during 2002-2003.
http://www.immigrationportal.com/archive/index.php/f-121.html
http://www.immigrationportal.com/archive/index.php/f-121.html
more...
masala dosa
03-23 08:46 PM
Check This
2010 Table Centerpiece Ideas Fruit
bayarea07
07-18 04:00 PM
Have we taken in to account these action items
1) Improve Overall GC Process time.
2) Re-use all unused visa's that went in vain in past
3) Count each family as one visa instead of each for each family member.
And What do we need to do as a member of IV to lobby these changes.
1) Improve Overall GC Process time.
2) Re-use all unused visa's that went in vain in past
3) Count each family as one visa instead of each for each family member.
And What do we need to do as a member of IV to lobby these changes.
more...
GCwaitforever
11-20 10:07 AM
Check with your Attorney ... From http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/
November 15, 2006, Backlog Cases Inadvertently Withdrawn as Re-Files
It has come to the attention of the Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) that due to a technical issue, a number of cases were inadvertently identified as pending PERM re-file applications and were withdrawn from the backlog. OFLC is working to rectify this situation immediately by identifying the affected cases, and reinstating them back to the appropriate processing status in proper order. This effort will be completed by November 30, 2006.
Although affected employers and their attorneys will NOT be receiving an additional notice of reinstatement, they may verify their case has been reinstated using the Public Disclosure System (PDS) starting December 1st. Since verification will be available online, employers and attorneys are requested not to contact the Backlog Elimination Centers regarding status.
November 15, 2006, Backlog Cases Inadvertently Withdrawn as Re-Files
It has come to the attention of the Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) that due to a technical issue, a number of cases were inadvertently identified as pending PERM re-file applications and were withdrawn from the backlog. OFLC is working to rectify this situation immediately by identifying the affected cases, and reinstating them back to the appropriate processing status in proper order. This effort will be completed by November 30, 2006.
Although affected employers and their attorneys will NOT be receiving an additional notice of reinstatement, they may verify their case has been reinstated using the Public Disclosure System (PDS) starting December 1st. Since verification will be available online, employers and attorneys are requested not to contact the Backlog Elimination Centers regarding status.
hair wedding table centerpiece
arnet
10-19 02:27 PM
bump /\/\
more...
reachinus
07-14 01:13 PM
I think if you can prove the emergency to the consulate then you can book an emergency appt. I assume all H1's are eligible for this appt. SEnd a mail to consulate and chekc it out.
hot Table Centerpiece Ideas 2
georgemonster
04-26 07:54 PM
yep me like too. I was expecting one of those Richard D James little girls though, from come to daddy.
Good Good.
Good Good.
more...
house centerpiece ideas for a
sw33t
07-27 03:28 PM
SENATOR CORNYN IS THE CHAIR OF THE INDIA CAUCUS IN THE U.S. SENATE
WHO: U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas
WHEN: Thursday,August 9,
Lunch: 11:30 a.m.
Speech: 12:30 p.m.
WHERE: Lakeway Inn, New Glass Ballroom
SPONSOR: Rotary Club/Lakeway
Lake Travis
COST: $250 per table of 10,
or $25 per individual
RESERVATIONS: MANDATORY!
10 Tables are being reserved
for Rotary & Guests
20 Table reservations will
be taken and must be paid for
by July 27, 2007!
Please PM me if you are interested.
WHO: U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas
WHEN: Thursday,August 9,
Lunch: 11:30 a.m.
Speech: 12:30 p.m.
WHERE: Lakeway Inn, New Glass Ballroom
SPONSOR: Rotary Club/Lakeway
Lake Travis
COST: $250 per table of 10,
or $25 per individual
RESERVATIONS: MANDATORY!
10 Tables are being reserved
for Rotary & Guests
20 Table reservations will
be taken and must be paid for
by July 27, 2007!
Please PM me if you are interested.
tattoo Table Centerpiece Ideas Fruit
aldorr
06-28 11:54 PM
So, I was up on the roof at work and happened to have an orange with me... so I balanced it on my head and snapped this pic looking like I'm about to suck the Transamerica Pyramid up through a straw. Oh, then I did a bit of editing in Photoshop.
Enjoy,
aldorr
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3230/orangeself.jpg
http://img197.imageshack.us/my.php?image=orangeself.jpg
Enjoy,
aldorr
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3230/orangeself.jpg
http://img197.imageshack.us/my.php?image=orangeself.jpg
more...
pictures Table Centerpiece Ideas
loku
12-28 11:54 AM
Please let me know!!
dresses Candy Table Centerpieces
bkarnik
08-02 08:43 PM
Please see attached link from Murthy website. http://www.murthy.com/news/n_daylet.html
This is posted for information only. Any members affected by backlogs and haven't received their 45-day letters please contact your attorneys.
This is posted for information only. Any members affected by backlogs and haven't received their 45-day letters please contact your attorneys.
more...
makeup christmas table centerpieces
sargon
10-19 02:05 AM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22076
girlfriend ideas for table decorations
gc_kaavaali
07-24 02:17 PM
please provide details like PD, Service Center, NAtionality, Chargeability, etc...
hairstyles Table cloth covers:
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
Blog Feeds
06-26 09:40 AM
Sounding good: THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________ For Immediate Release June 25, 2009 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AFTER MEETING WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO DISCUSS IMMIGRATION State Dining Room 3:17 P.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. We have just finished what I consider to be a very productive meeting on one of the most critical issues that I think this nation faces, and that is an immigration system that is broken and needs fixing. We have members of Congress from both chambers, from parties, who have participated in the meeting and shared a range of ideas....
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/obamas-statement-on-immigration-summit.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/obamas-statement-on-immigration-summit.html)
admin
04-07 10:24 AM
This breaking news is about some really critical accomplishment by IV. We're preparing the content and should be out in another 15-20 minutes.
We're not sure which way the political proceedings will take us, but with this news you will rest assured that when we work together we can achieve a lot.
We're not sure which way the political proceedings will take us, but with this news you will rest assured that when we work together we can achieve a lot.
No comments:
Post a Comment