coolstonesa
03-29 03:40 PM
Folks,
I was on L1B and H1B for about 2.5 years around 2000-2003. I am now on TN for past 3-4 years and my current employer is going to chagne it to H1B.
The company HR and I are under the impression that this would require a new H1B application (by April 2nd to qualify for the upcoming year 2008 H1B quota). However, the company attorney told us that since I was on H1B in the past, so we don't need to file for a new H1B petition against the 2008 quota...rather we can activate my old H1-B at any time and use the remaining time from the 6 year period.
Does anyone know if there is any such provision to activate the old visa. I am under the impression that as I changed to TN status and no longer hold H1B, so it would require a new petition.
Your opinion would be appreciated.
Thanks.
I was on L1B and H1B for about 2.5 years around 2000-2003. I am now on TN for past 3-4 years and my current employer is going to chagne it to H1B.
The company HR and I are under the impression that this would require a new H1B application (by April 2nd to qualify for the upcoming year 2008 H1B quota). However, the company attorney told us that since I was on H1B in the past, so we don't need to file for a new H1B petition against the 2008 quota...rather we can activate my old H1-B at any time and use the remaining time from the 6 year period.
Does anyone know if there is any such provision to activate the old visa. I am under the impression that as I changed to TN status and no longer hold H1B, so it would require a new petition.
Your opinion would be appreciated.
Thanks.
wallpaper Hello Kitty Retractable ID
katharina
10-09 01:18 PM
I am currently in the US for an internship. I would like to change from the J1 Visa to a Tourist Visa. Is this possible? and where will I be able to get information and the forms?
I would appreciate any help
I would appreciate any help
rs1518
07-18 10:09 AM
My company and lawyer refuse to talk to me or email me back.
I sent my completed package to the lawyer 2 weeks back, and I have not heard back from him.
The initial draft needs to be sent back by the lawyer for signatures and then the file can go out.
How do I hadle the situation?
I sent my completed package to the lawyer 2 weeks back, and I have not heard back from him.
The initial draft needs to be sent back by the lawyer for signatures and then the file can go out.
How do I hadle the situation?
2011 500pcs/lots Hello kitty Neck
raysaikat
11-29 08:59 PM
Online EAD status says Card production ordered. Not received card yet. Is there any memo/ lawyer opinion that says it is OK to work that as a basis for employment eligibility?
You need to have the card in hand to fill in I-9.
You need to have the card in hand to fill in I-9.
more...
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.
whiteStallion
06-22 04:32 PM
Delay and more delay for CRIS....
more...
Blog Feeds
10-28 12:20 PM
Delaware Immigration Lawyer Blog Has Just Posted the Following:
Some decisions and cases support that a corporation even if it is owned and operated by a single person may hire that same individual in an H-1B capacity. This is based on the concept that the corporation is a separate legal entity fron its owner. However, self-sponsored H-1Bs are subject to careful review. The parties have to prove existence of a bona fide employer and employee relationship.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1142140030762969806-934276915910839855?l=deimmigration.blogspot.com
More... (http://deimmigration.blogspot.com/2009/09/self-sponsored-h-1b.html)
Some decisions and cases support that a corporation even if it is owned and operated by a single person may hire that same individual in an H-1B capacity. This is based on the concept that the corporation is a separate legal entity fron its owner. However, self-sponsored H-1Bs are subject to careful review. The parties have to prove existence of a bona fide employer and employee relationship.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/1142140030762969806-934276915910839855?l=deimmigration.blogspot.com
More... (http://deimmigration.blogspot.com/2009/09/self-sponsored-h-1b.html)
2010 Hello Kitty Key Caps at Urban
drirshad
04-07 12:30 PM
no news yet, i m kinda breaking ........
more...
imh1b
07-15 12:59 PM
I saw Immigration Voice name on
Members | CompeteAmerica (http://competeamerica.org/about/2010-members)
It should give us more lobbying power?
Members | CompeteAmerica (http://competeamerica.org/about/2010-members)
It should give us more lobbying power?
hair Loungefly Sanrio Hello Kitty
logiclife
03-23 11:24 PM
If you are working/Living in Tennessee please urgenly email with you name and phone number to
jay@immigrationvoice.org
aman@immigrationvoice.org
rajesh@immigrationvoice.org
This is VERY VERY IMPORTANT and please do it promptly. We need your help RIGHT AWAY as we have a good chance at making a difference in the next few days.
Please do not hesitate and come forward. You can also call us at 281-576-7185.
--Jay.
jay@immigrationvoice.org
aman@immigrationvoice.org
rajesh@immigrationvoice.org
This is VERY VERY IMPORTANT and please do it promptly. We need your help RIGHT AWAY as we have a good chance at making a difference in the next few days.
Please do not hesitate and come forward. You can also call us at 281-576-7185.
--Jay.
more...
aaaa4321
08-26 09:43 AM
hey Guys
Please update regarding this matter.
Please update regarding this matter.
hot hello kitty Neck Lanyard
jerez_z
11-03 11:43 AM
I'm looking for PHP or ActionScript work. I'm not a designer in any sense of the word, so I can't do any graphical work. I'm just starting out, so my protfolio is lacking but I have done several full blown CMSs lately. I've never gotten a problem I couldn't solve, I just need to prove myself.
more...
house Wholesale - Hello Kitty Straps
mangal
01-08 09:31 AM
CAN I FILE MY I-140 WHILE I M WAITING FOR MY H-1B RENEWAL(3YEARs).MY OLD H-1B IS ALREADY EXPIRED.
tattoo Wholesale - Hello Kitty Cell
up_guy
03-05 02:11 PM
I am looking for some feedback how is FexEx based in Memphis for joining on Ac1. How easy or difficult is to get a H-1B sponsorship and a new green card sponsorship etc ? How is their immigration lawyers ? I would also appreciate any other feedback on FedEx as an employer.
Regards
Manish
Regards
Manish
more...
pictures HELLO KITTY Lanyard LUCKY CHARM Sanrio ADVENTUROUS | eBay
kirupa
10-31 06:22 AM
Added :P
dresses Loungefly Sanrio Hello Kitty
virtual55
11-22 01:57 PM
Hello Gurus,
Can we change company based upon approved I140 and get a 3 H1B in the 7th year of H1
what happens if my previous employer cancels I140.
Can we change company based upon approved I140 and get a 3 H1B in the 7th year of H1
what happens if my previous employer cancels I140.
more...
makeup 16Pcs Hello Kitty Cell Phone
aicheema
06-23 08:21 AM
Currently, I am working with software firm (not a contract work). My wife is re applying for H4 visa. she applied for h4 last year in Feb, i used to work with contracting firm then and refused under 214b(immigration intent). This time we are applying through attorney. Attorney have sent email thrice to Islamabad consulatein Pakistan stating that denial under 214(b) for H4 is not valid reason.
But no response from them.
However my wife is applying again and taking letter with her from attorney stating that reason was invliad.
I am wondering
1- Do we need to highlight the previous denial so much as she is applying on new h1B now
2- in any case, can they revoke and cancel my petition as if they do not find any valid reason to reject again.
I am looking forward to hear from you
Thanks
But no response from them.
However my wife is applying again and taking letter with her from attorney stating that reason was invliad.
I am wondering
1- Do we need to highlight the previous denial so much as she is applying on new h1B now
2- in any case, can they revoke and cancel my petition as if they do not find any valid reason to reject again.
I am looking forward to hear from you
Thanks
girlfriend kitty
floridaguy
06-23 08:41 PM
Friends - anyone here who has applied in PERM where job required B.S + 2 - 4 yrs of experience? Mine is a Job zone 4(sr. software engineer), requires B.S + 30 months and in the PERM form the lawyer has entered 'No' to H12 question 'Is this normal requirements'. Were they right? Or should I be worried? Anybody can share any experience? Thanks!
hairstyles Die-Cut Hello Kitty face
cscslow
07-25 01:38 PM
Does anyone know how slow/fast/better is the Counsular Processing back in India if you ever become eligible to do that?
Is itbetter than applying 485 here and waiting .......ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
Don't go for it. It may be fast but you are working with too many variables that may go wrong. I went back home last year for CP and suddenly I became a victim of retrogression. I missed my cutoff date by two days. Then I had to wait for about 3 months to get my H1 stamp. I was lucky that I didn't lose my job here.
Is itbetter than applying 485 here and waiting .......ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
Don't go for it. It may be fast but you are working with too many variables that may go wrong. I went back home last year for CP and suddenly I became a victim of retrogression. I missed my cutoff date by two days. Then I had to wait for about 3 months to get my H1 stamp. I was lucky that I didn't lose my job here.
rkgc
03-31 12:26 PM
Hi,
I got my PERM labor approved yesterday, for applying I-140 were can I find the processing dates for I-140? I mean specific to Country? Because, if I go to https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC the processing time for "Skilled worker or professional" is April, 1 2008, does this date apply for all? Thanks in advance.
Thanks,
RK
I got my PERM labor approved yesterday, for applying I-140 were can I find the processing dates for I-140? I mean specific to Country? Because, if I go to https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC the processing time for "Skilled worker or professional" is April, 1 2008, does this date apply for all? Thanks in advance.
Thanks,
RK
dixie
08-17 01:18 AM
I am on H1B 8th year extension, my priority date is September,2004. When I join new employer, Will I lose my current priority date as well as LC?
Depends on whether or not your I-140 is approved. If it is, and your old employer does not withdraw the petition then there is a possibility of carrying on with your old PD. I am no expert on this, but the issue has been discussed several times on this forum. Do a search for more info.
Depends on whether or not your I-140 is approved. If it is, and your old employer does not withdraw the petition then there is a possibility of carrying on with your old PD. I am no expert on this, but the issue has been discussed several times on this forum. Do a search for more info.
No comments:
Post a Comment