Macaca
11-10 05:44 PM
Why Moderate Republicans Wield Newfound Clout; Democrats Need Allies To Override Bush Vetoes Of Major Legislation (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119457364946187455.html) By David Rogers. Wall Street Journal, Nov 9, 2007
Long ignored when their party was in control, moderate Republicans are the new power brokers in an increasingly bitter series of veto confrontations between President Bush and the Democratic Congress.
Senior Democrats met last night with centrist House Republicans, trying to get a veto-proof majority for a child-health-insurance initiative opposed by Mr. Bush. Senate moderates played a part in an earlier 79-14 roll call overriding his veto of a water-resources bill. Moderates in both chambers will decide the future of a $151 billion education, labor and health-care budget approved by the House last night, 274-141, with 51 Republicans opposing the president.
The new dynamic reflects both the Democratic takeover of Congress and how Mr. Bush responded to it. In 1994, after Republicans took over, President Clinton saw a new middle ground defined by the election and moved away from fellow liberals in Congress. Mr. Bush did the opposite, moving to the right to shore up his conservative base, leaving an opening in the center.
The White House's more-confrontational tactics are a strategy calculated to disrupt the new majority and reduce the effectiveness of Congress to challenge Mr. Bush on the war in Iraq. The result has been a convergence of veto threats over spending levels and domestic policy, leaving little time for the two sides to reach deals.
A stopgap bill to keep the government funded until Dec. 14 neared passage last night, and Democrats have agreed to give the president his top priority: a $471 billion Pentagon budget including emergency funds for armored vehicles in Iraq. But new fights flared up in the House over war policy, and there is no peace in sight on the domestic front.
The education budget faces an almost certain veto. A $105.6 billion transportation and housing budget, approved by House-Senate negotiators, faces the same fate.
The White House argues that Democrats won no mandate in 2006 to increase spending and have floundered over how best to present the bills to Mr. Bush. "Their strategy changes by the hour," White House Budget Director Jim Nussle said. "I get different answers from every one of them."
Unaccustomed to the spotlight, Republican moderates find themselves in an uncomfortable role somewhere between being tied to the railroad tracks as the Democrats and White House come barreling down, and being the switchman who can save the train.
Yesterday's Senate vote on the water-resources veto was the first time Mr. Bush has been overridden. The more-telling test will come on the child-health-insurance and education bills now in play.
The health-care bill calls for an additional $35 billion in spending over the next five years to expand coverage for the children of working-class families. To win over moderates, Democrats are prepared to add tighter income limits and push more parents off the rolls. There has been a backlash from New Jersey and Rhode Island senators worried about the impact on their states; at the same time, House Republican leaders are pressing to pull their members back.
"There's a decent chance of a deal," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.).
"I'm seeing the potential for some successes," said Rep. Joseph Knollenberg (R., Mich.).
As talks continue, a synergy has developed between the fate of the child-health bill and education budget, known as the "Labor H" bill -- so much so that the health talks even moved into the House Appropriations Committee rooms last night as members voted on the floor.
On a vote Tuesday night, it was evident that Republicans, who had stood with the president against the health-care bill, were looking for a chance to show their independence on the second bill, Labor H.
"There was a lot of talk in the corner. 'I'm getting a lot of heat at home because of my [health-care] vote,'" said Rep. Steven LaTourette (R., Ohio). "'I have to make it right on Labor H.'"
In crafting the package, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D., Wis.) has moved to the right to win over Republicans. Spending has been cut by about $1 billion below the level approved by the House in July, and antiabortion language has been preserved for conservatives.
"I've been told many times by the White House that they have no intention of compromising," he warned in a last appeal to moderates last night. "It's put up or shut up time."
Long ignored when their party was in control, moderate Republicans are the new power brokers in an increasingly bitter series of veto confrontations between President Bush and the Democratic Congress.
Senior Democrats met last night with centrist House Republicans, trying to get a veto-proof majority for a child-health-insurance initiative opposed by Mr. Bush. Senate moderates played a part in an earlier 79-14 roll call overriding his veto of a water-resources bill. Moderates in both chambers will decide the future of a $151 billion education, labor and health-care budget approved by the House last night, 274-141, with 51 Republicans opposing the president.
The new dynamic reflects both the Democratic takeover of Congress and how Mr. Bush responded to it. In 1994, after Republicans took over, President Clinton saw a new middle ground defined by the election and moved away from fellow liberals in Congress. Mr. Bush did the opposite, moving to the right to shore up his conservative base, leaving an opening in the center.
The White House's more-confrontational tactics are a strategy calculated to disrupt the new majority and reduce the effectiveness of Congress to challenge Mr. Bush on the war in Iraq. The result has been a convergence of veto threats over spending levels and domestic policy, leaving little time for the two sides to reach deals.
A stopgap bill to keep the government funded until Dec. 14 neared passage last night, and Democrats have agreed to give the president his top priority: a $471 billion Pentagon budget including emergency funds for armored vehicles in Iraq. But new fights flared up in the House over war policy, and there is no peace in sight on the domestic front.
The education budget faces an almost certain veto. A $105.6 billion transportation and housing budget, approved by House-Senate negotiators, faces the same fate.
The White House argues that Democrats won no mandate in 2006 to increase spending and have floundered over how best to present the bills to Mr. Bush. "Their strategy changes by the hour," White House Budget Director Jim Nussle said. "I get different answers from every one of them."
Unaccustomed to the spotlight, Republican moderates find themselves in an uncomfortable role somewhere between being tied to the railroad tracks as the Democrats and White House come barreling down, and being the switchman who can save the train.
Yesterday's Senate vote on the water-resources veto was the first time Mr. Bush has been overridden. The more-telling test will come on the child-health-insurance and education bills now in play.
The health-care bill calls for an additional $35 billion in spending over the next five years to expand coverage for the children of working-class families. To win over moderates, Democrats are prepared to add tighter income limits and push more parents off the rolls. There has been a backlash from New Jersey and Rhode Island senators worried about the impact on their states; at the same time, House Republican leaders are pressing to pull their members back.
"There's a decent chance of a deal," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.).
"I'm seeing the potential for some successes," said Rep. Joseph Knollenberg (R., Mich.).
As talks continue, a synergy has developed between the fate of the child-health bill and education budget, known as the "Labor H" bill -- so much so that the health talks even moved into the House Appropriations Committee rooms last night as members voted on the floor.
On a vote Tuesday night, it was evident that Republicans, who had stood with the president against the health-care bill, were looking for a chance to show their independence on the second bill, Labor H.
"There was a lot of talk in the corner. 'I'm getting a lot of heat at home because of my [health-care] vote,'" said Rep. Steven LaTourette (R., Ohio). "'I have to make it right on Labor H.'"
In crafting the package, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D., Wis.) has moved to the right to win over Republicans. Spending has been cut by about $1 billion below the level approved by the House in July, and antiabortion language has been preserved for conservatives.
"I've been told many times by the White House that they have no intention of compromising," he warned in a last appeal to moderates last night. "It's put up or shut up time."
wallpaper 2011 Cute Short punk
glus
10-18 10:32 AM
Yes, it can be transferred. Fees will include a fee for I-129 ($320) and a fraud prevention fee, which is $500. The employer fee is waived if the non-for-profit company qualifies as non-profit under the U.S. immigration laws.
ibb
02-08 05:04 PM
If I apply for H1b in April, 2008 and choose consular visa processing, and the H1b starts in Oct, 2008. Do I have to go to the consular for a H1b visa? I might receive a EAD from 485 before October, and if I do, I would like to use EAD but keep the option of H1b open.
Can anyone answer me???
Say I don't activate my H1b in Oct 2008, but H1b is valid for three years, does it mean I can activate it any time by going to the consular for a H1b visa from 10/2008 to 09/2011? Of course I will keep my status valid (AOS) throughout the period.
Thank you for your answer!!!
Can anyone answer me???
Say I don't activate my H1b in Oct 2008, but H1b is valid for three years, does it mean I can activate it any time by going to the consular for a H1b visa from 10/2008 to 09/2011? Of course I will keep my status valid (AOS) throughout the period.
Thank you for your answer!!!
2011 hair cute punk hairstyles.
tor78
04-25 11:33 AM
You can show/do non-payed or volunteer work on your OPT to avoid the 90 day unemployed restriction.
more...
karenno2
12-01 04:29 PM
I am on H1B visa, and now I am going to fly back to my home country. Unfortunately, I can't find the original left lower portion of my I797, which is "for personal record". I still have the orignial upper portion, I94, and copies of the whole I797 form.
Will I have trouble getting my visa stamp and reenterring this country? What should I do now?
Thanks a lot!
Will I have trouble getting my visa stamp and reenterring this country? What should I do now?
Thanks a lot!
sundarpn
07-01 01:44 AM
is it Ok to share copy of one's 140 or 485 document copies when checking into feasibility of AC21?
more...
Ihitha
02-26 03:28 PM
Hi
I'm currently working on L1B visa from company A. My present employer applied H1B visa also for me and it got approved around in the August last year. Now I'm planning to change my visa status to H1B.
So I would like to know the options that I have to get my visa status changed to H1b.
1) Can I transfer my H1B to some other company now as my H1B already approved? Is it possible?
If it is, how can I change my status?
2) What is the procedure if I have my current employer do my visa status changed to H1B? Do I need to leave US and come back to take that effect?
Please kindly reply to my questions.
Thanks in advance.
I'm currently working on L1B visa from company A. My present employer applied H1B visa also for me and it got approved around in the August last year. Now I'm planning to change my visa status to H1B.
So I would like to know the options that I have to get my visa status changed to H1b.
1) Can I transfer my H1B to some other company now as my H1B already approved? Is it possible?
If it is, how can I change my status?
2) What is the procedure if I have my current employer do my visa status changed to H1B? Do I need to leave US and come back to take that effect?
Please kindly reply to my questions.
Thanks in advance.
2010 cute short punk hairstyle
abdev
07-21 01:02 PM
PERM (labor certification) process is a requirement from the DOL and has to be fulfilled by the employer. The employer will have to bear the costs of this first step in GC which includes (filing fees, recruitment process, lawyer fees etc). It is illegal for an employer to seek this compensation from the employee. Expenses incurred in I-140 and I-485 need not be compensated by the employer.
In your case, it seems that the employer is ready to help you with all the documentation but is not ready to bear the expenses. You will have to explain to your employer how the GC Process works and the requirements of the PERM process.
In your case, it seems that the employer is ready to help you with all the documentation but is not ready to bear the expenses. You will have to explain to your employer how the GC Process works and the requirements of the PERM process.
more...
glus
01-02 12:17 PM
My attorney said she could get us to talk on one of the AILA meetings as she knows the AILA president very well. This could be awesome!! Let me know. I am from NY close to the City. She also asked if she could add link to immigrationvoice.org to her website.
hair punk hairstyles for girls.
Immi95
02-16 12:30 PM
Hello?
In Mid 2007, 7th year of H-1B tansfer & extension was filed, and was no problem as I had an approved ETA-750 with ex-employer, but it was expired soon as the sponsor�s (ex-employer) company was closed at the end of 2007.
The 7th year approval period was 12/11/2007 ~ 12/10/2008 with the current employer.
I filed another labor certification (ETA-9089) on 10/23/2007 which was sponsored by my current employer, and it has not been approved yet.
Using this ETA-9089 pending more than 365 days, I filed an I-129 extension for 8th year of H1B last November 2008, but INS sent "Request For additional Evidence Sent" letter which was saying to be provided �An evidence of pending / being processed for more than 365 days of labor certification or I-140 prior to 6 year expired of H-1B�. we just realized that a memo was posted regarding this on 05/30/2008.
As I don�t have this evidence... Please advise or recommend me...
In Mid 2007, 7th year of H-1B tansfer & extension was filed, and was no problem as I had an approved ETA-750 with ex-employer, but it was expired soon as the sponsor�s (ex-employer) company was closed at the end of 2007.
The 7th year approval period was 12/11/2007 ~ 12/10/2008 with the current employer.
I filed another labor certification (ETA-9089) on 10/23/2007 which was sponsored by my current employer, and it has not been approved yet.
Using this ETA-9089 pending more than 365 days, I filed an I-129 extension for 8th year of H1B last November 2008, but INS sent "Request For additional Evidence Sent" letter which was saying to be provided �An evidence of pending / being processed for more than 365 days of labor certification or I-140 prior to 6 year expired of H-1B�. we just realized that a memo was posted regarding this on 05/30/2008.
As I don�t have this evidence... Please advise or recommend me...
more...
stxvr
02-26 03:48 PM
Hi
I have one question about the online AR-11 form.
In the online AR 11 form there is one field called Port of entry and there is drop down box which has many items to select the port of entry. This drop down box has two items related to my port of entry.
MA- BOSTON
MA- LOGAN Airport
Are these really two different airports?
I entered US in the Boston Logan Airport (international airport). Which entry I need to select?
MA-Boston
OR
MA- Logan Airport
I have one question about the online AR-11 form.
In the online AR 11 form there is one field called Port of entry and there is drop down box which has many items to select the port of entry. This drop down box has two items related to my port of entry.
MA- BOSTON
MA- LOGAN Airport
Are these really two different airports?
I entered US in the Boston Logan Airport (international airport). Which entry I need to select?
MA-Boston
OR
MA- Logan Airport
hot cute hairstyles for girls with
Macaca
06-22 06:55 AM
Senate Passes Energy Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062101026.html?hpid=topnews) Democrats Prevail; Mileage Standard Would Be Raised By Sholnn Freeman (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/sholnn+freeman/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, June 22, 2007
The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters.
After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.
The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.
Democratic leaders said they hoped the legislation will be a rallying point for voters concerned about national security, climate change and near-record gasoline prices.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels and for the first time in decades significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader.
Final passage of the bill capped an otherwise rancorous week in which senators grappled over energy policy. Early yesterday, Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction after a $32 billion package of energy tax cuts was blocked on a procedural vote. But late in the day, a bipartisan group of senators came together to break an impasse on vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would require cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicle to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Earlier in the week, the Senate rejected additions to the bill that would have pumped billions of federal dollars into efforts to ramp up production of a coal-based fuel for cars and trucks, which proponents had called an important alternative to petroleum. Additionally, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) failed to win approval for a proposal to allow exploration for natural gas off the Virginia coast, and Republicans blocked an effort to require that more of the nation's electricity come for renewable sources.
The passage of fuel-efficiency measure was viewed as a major triumph for the Democrats, particularly the last-minute dealmaking that enabled passage of the comprehensive change to mileage standards.
The politics of fuel economy had gone virtually unchanged since Congress passed the first nationwide standards -- known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE -- in 1975. The last time the full Senate tried to boost fuel-economy standards was in 2002, and the effort was defeated handily.
The auto industry successfully argued that large increases in efficiency standards would force them to build smaller vehicles -- the kind American consumers won't buy. In recent years, however, low mileage standards left U.S. automakers with little market defense against higher-mileage Japanese cars, particularly at times when gas prices soar. As consumers have moved gradually from SUVs and pickup trucks to smaller vehicles, Detroit's Big Three automakers have gone through a painful restructuring period.
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
The fuel-efficiency language in the Senate energy package originally had coupled a 35 mile-per-gallon standard with a requirement of 4 percent annual increases for the decade after 2020. A group led by the two Michigan senators -- Democrats Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow -- and Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had sought instead to gain support for an amendment that would impose less-stringent standards while satisfying growing demands for change in the fuel-efficiency laws.
In the compromise-- shepherded principally by Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) -- lawmakers dropped a provision that would have mandated additional 4 percent annual increases in fuel efficiency between 2021 and 2030. They also softened a provision that would have required all automakers to build substantially more vehicles that can run on ethanol and other biofuels.
After the fuel-economy vote, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), another architect of the compromise, said the nation's desire to be less dependent on foreign oil would be a "hopeless journey" without more efficient cars and trucks.
"Now, in our vehicles, we have better cup-holders, we have keyless entry, we have better music systems, we have heated seats," Dorgan said. "It is time that we expect more automobile efficiency."
Senators who had previously been friendly to the auto industry said they were changing their position after growing weary of the industry's position. "I listened and I listened, year after year," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said on the Senate floor. "And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change."
In the end, Senate aides said, Levin's group did not have the votes.
Democratic leaders said the bipartisan backing of the compromise worked out in the Senate would help build support in the House when that chamber House begins debate on its energy package. Already, Rep. John D. Dingell, (D-Mich.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have battled over fuel economy.
In another Senate battle yesterday, Democrats lost a fight against oil companies when Republicans blocked a $32 billion tax package that would have poured money into alternative fuel projects by raising taxes on oil and gas companies.
President Bush, meanwhile, visited the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens, Ala., where he touted nuclear power as a clean, dependable and safe source of electricity and promised to streamline the federal regulatory process to ease the way for the construction of new plants.
"Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases," Bush said. "If you're interested in cleaning up the air you ought to be for nuclear power."
Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher in Athens, Ala., contributed to this report.
The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters.
After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.
The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.
Democratic leaders said they hoped the legislation will be a rallying point for voters concerned about national security, climate change and near-record gasoline prices.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels and for the first time in decades significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader.
Final passage of the bill capped an otherwise rancorous week in which senators grappled over energy policy. Early yesterday, Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction after a $32 billion package of energy tax cuts was blocked on a procedural vote. But late in the day, a bipartisan group of senators came together to break an impasse on vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would require cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicle to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Earlier in the week, the Senate rejected additions to the bill that would have pumped billions of federal dollars into efforts to ramp up production of a coal-based fuel for cars and trucks, which proponents had called an important alternative to petroleum. Additionally, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) failed to win approval for a proposal to allow exploration for natural gas off the Virginia coast, and Republicans blocked an effort to require that more of the nation's electricity come for renewable sources.
The passage of fuel-efficiency measure was viewed as a major triumph for the Democrats, particularly the last-minute dealmaking that enabled passage of the comprehensive change to mileage standards.
The politics of fuel economy had gone virtually unchanged since Congress passed the first nationwide standards -- known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE -- in 1975. The last time the full Senate tried to boost fuel-economy standards was in 2002, and the effort was defeated handily.
The auto industry successfully argued that large increases in efficiency standards would force them to build smaller vehicles -- the kind American consumers won't buy. In recent years, however, low mileage standards left U.S. automakers with little market defense against higher-mileage Japanese cars, particularly at times when gas prices soar. As consumers have moved gradually from SUVs and pickup trucks to smaller vehicles, Detroit's Big Three automakers have gone through a painful restructuring period.
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
The fuel-efficiency language in the Senate energy package originally had coupled a 35 mile-per-gallon standard with a requirement of 4 percent annual increases for the decade after 2020. A group led by the two Michigan senators -- Democrats Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow -- and Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had sought instead to gain support for an amendment that would impose less-stringent standards while satisfying growing demands for change in the fuel-efficiency laws.
In the compromise-- shepherded principally by Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) -- lawmakers dropped a provision that would have mandated additional 4 percent annual increases in fuel efficiency between 2021 and 2030. They also softened a provision that would have required all automakers to build substantially more vehicles that can run on ethanol and other biofuels.
After the fuel-economy vote, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), another architect of the compromise, said the nation's desire to be less dependent on foreign oil would be a "hopeless journey" without more efficient cars and trucks.
"Now, in our vehicles, we have better cup-holders, we have keyless entry, we have better music systems, we have heated seats," Dorgan said. "It is time that we expect more automobile efficiency."
Senators who had previously been friendly to the auto industry said they were changing their position after growing weary of the industry's position. "I listened and I listened, year after year," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said on the Senate floor. "And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change."
In the end, Senate aides said, Levin's group did not have the votes.
Democratic leaders said the bipartisan backing of the compromise worked out in the Senate would help build support in the House when that chamber House begins debate on its energy package. Already, Rep. John D. Dingell, (D-Mich.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have battled over fuel economy.
In another Senate battle yesterday, Democrats lost a fight against oil companies when Republicans blocked a $32 billion tax package that would have poured money into alternative fuel projects by raising taxes on oil and gas companies.
President Bush, meanwhile, visited the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens, Ala., where he touted nuclear power as a clean, dependable and safe source of electricity and promised to streamline the federal regulatory process to ease the way for the construction of new plants.
"Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases," Bush said. "If you're interested in cleaning up the air you ought to be for nuclear power."
Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher in Athens, Ala., contributed to this report.
more...
house cute punk hairstyles. hot
raj76
01-07 12:41 AM
This may seem strange and confusing. Here is my case
I changed my employer from A to B with an intention of taking advantage of an existing approved labor with employer B. I applied for I-140 and H1B transfer at the same time in March 2007. I-140 was approved in June 2007. In July 2007, I applied for EAD and 485. Meanwhile, I got an RFE for H1b transfer and my attorney responded to this in time. I got my EAD approval in Sep 2007 and got FP done before my I-94 (thru company A) expiration in Nov 2007. I got a denial notice for my H1B on Nov 13 2007. My attorney missed the appeal date so no appeal has been filed for the H1B denial.
Here are my questions:
- Am I currently out of status since my I-94 expired in Nov 2007?
- If I am not out of status, what is the next course of action I should be taking?
- Will there be any issues when i try to renew my EAD?
Thank you in advance for your advice.
I changed my employer from A to B with an intention of taking advantage of an existing approved labor with employer B. I applied for I-140 and H1B transfer at the same time in March 2007. I-140 was approved in June 2007. In July 2007, I applied for EAD and 485. Meanwhile, I got an RFE for H1b transfer and my attorney responded to this in time. I got my EAD approval in Sep 2007 and got FP done before my I-94 (thru company A) expiration in Nov 2007. I got a denial notice for my H1B on Nov 13 2007. My attorney missed the appeal date so no appeal has been filed for the H1B denial.
Here are my questions:
- Am I currently out of status since my I-94 expired in Nov 2007?
- If I am not out of status, what is the next course of action I should be taking?
- Will there be any issues when i try to renew my EAD?
Thank you in advance for your advice.
tattoo Cute Short punk Hairstyles
gc.4desi
03-29 08:04 PM
any inputs please?:confused:
more...
pictures cute punk hairstyles. punk
Bark
03-22 08:57 AM
Hi all. I'm looking for a little help with part 2 of I-485. I've sent off my I-140 and I am hoping to apply adjustment of status concurrently. I wondering which box to fill in part 2. A. looks the closest, it reads: 'an immigrant petition giving me an immediately available immigrant visa number has been approved. (Attach a copy of the approval notice......)' My trouble is this: If my I-140 is approved then my visa number is no problem, it is current for my category/country (outstanding professor/Canada). Since the I-140 is pending, this looks like the wrong box, however, none of the others look even remotely close. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Bark
dresses hairstyles hair cute guy
upuaut
09-29 10:54 PM
not sure what you mean by the words "scrolling from left to right" but I'd be happy to make anything you need as long as it's relatively simple.
Can you discribe in a little more detail what it is you're thinking?
Can you discribe in a little more detail what it is you're thinking?
more...
makeup Cute Smile with Short Punk
palemguy
12-21 02:46 PM
My EAD got approved today. It is in card production stage.
I am wondering if mutli year EAD if effective immediately. If so, I will be getting EAD that is valid for 3 yrs or mutli years right?
Friends, I appreciates your inputs.
I am wondering if mutli year EAD if effective immediately. If so, I will be getting EAD that is valid for 3 yrs or mutli years right?
Friends, I appreciates your inputs.
girlfriend punk hairstyles for girls with
chinta_ramesh
10-01 07:33 PM
Hi,
I was reading the article - http://www.murthy.com/news/n_intead.html
Is this still valid procedure to get the Interim EAD ? Our EAD expires on OCT-14 and 90 days completes on OCT 7th.
Please advise.
I was reading the article - http://www.murthy.com/news/n_intead.html
Is this still valid procedure to get the Interim EAD ? Our EAD expires on OCT-14 and 90 days completes on OCT 7th.
Please advise.
hairstyles Punk Hairstyles
pawan
09-29 12:01 PM
My I 485 receipt does not have a priority date. Is it common to have an I 485 without a priority date.
smarth
12-16 12:38 PM
can anyone give answer to the above query?
ivar
06-18 09:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT_MO7Z6HyE
Few days back there were some people on this forum proposing an idea of buy houses for green card. If you watch the video somewhere around 32 or 33 mins, he talks about the same idea implemented in Canada. They said get 400K buy a house here and get a canadian passport this helped reduce housing inventory in canada. So may be this will give some inspiration to people supporting the idea of buy a house for green card. What i assume that people need to have 400K cash and not loan from a bank to be considered an investment in the country.
At 45 to 46th minute of the video he clearly says that raising taxes and protectionism is not going to help economy.. I hope Obama takes note of it.
At 52nd minute he bashes Vikram pandit for being CEO of citigroup. Overall a good video to watch for traders..
Thanks.
Few days back there were some people on this forum proposing an idea of buy houses for green card. If you watch the video somewhere around 32 or 33 mins, he talks about the same idea implemented in Canada. They said get 400K buy a house here and get a canadian passport this helped reduce housing inventory in canada. So may be this will give some inspiration to people supporting the idea of buy a house for green card. What i assume that people need to have 400K cash and not loan from a bank to be considered an investment in the country.
At 45 to 46th minute of the video he clearly says that raising taxes and protectionism is not going to help economy.. I hope Obama takes note of it.
At 52nd minute he bashes Vikram pandit for being CEO of citigroup. Overall a good video to watch for traders..
Thanks.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий