purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
wallpaper Fake Cake
IneedAllGreen
12-21 11:27 AM
Here is the chance to to show what are we doing at this forum at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Core members and expert from Midwest and Milwaukee area can enroll to attend this conference on immigration. Below is the information i am copying from UWM wesite. For further information you can click link written in below infromation.
CfP, "Immigration: Many Faces; Many Facets"
(Campus)
Apr. 26-27, 2007
Immigration, a salient public policy and humanitarian concern across the nation, will be the subject of the IRE's conference to be held at UW-Milwaukee's School of Continuing Education, 161 W. Wisconsin Ave., 7th Floor, in downtown Milwaukee.
Currently, the IRE is soliciting conference proposals from prospective submitters. We encourage presentations, either by individuals or groups/panels, from faculty, academic staff, community leaders
and activists, government officials and policymakers, etc.
Please go o to our website, www.uwm.edu/Dept/IRE, and follow the link to the actual Call for Conference Proposals. Here you will find a list of possible topics and themes, and well as the submission format. The due date to submit a conference proposal is December 22, 2006. We will contact you with a response by January 19, 2007.
More information...
Contact: Tom Tonnesen
tonnesen@uwm.edu
(414) 229-4700
Thanks
IneedAllGreen
CfP, "Immigration: Many Faces; Many Facets"
(Campus)
Apr. 26-27, 2007
Immigration, a salient public policy and humanitarian concern across the nation, will be the subject of the IRE's conference to be held at UW-Milwaukee's School of Continuing Education, 161 W. Wisconsin Ave., 7th Floor, in downtown Milwaukee.
Currently, the IRE is soliciting conference proposals from prospective submitters. We encourage presentations, either by individuals or groups/panels, from faculty, academic staff, community leaders
and activists, government officials and policymakers, etc.
Please go o to our website, www.uwm.edu/Dept/IRE, and follow the link to the actual Call for Conference Proposals. Here you will find a list of possible topics and themes, and well as the submission format. The due date to submit a conference proposal is December 22, 2006. We will contact you with a response by January 19, 2007.
More information...
Contact: Tom Tonnesen
tonnesen@uwm.edu
(414) 229-4700
Thanks
IneedAllGreen
delax
08-03 01:08 PM
I remember very clearly from last year that NOT having an A# on your approved I-140 is not a problem - Sheela Murthy was very clear about this on her calls for her clients. The 485 receipt though should have an A#.
FP is a different story. You have to get it done for 485 approval.
Disclaimer: My approved I-140 has an A# that matches the A# on the 485 receipt
FP is a different story. You have to get it done for 485 approval.
Disclaimer: My approved I-140 has an A# that matches the A# on the 485 receipt
2011 Damask Side Cake Stencil
aph0025
11-12 12:15 PM
Of course, I am assuming your previous status was H-4. If it was F-1 or something else, I don't know if you have valid permit to return to that status
I was on F1 visa. I had my OPT valid up to the 15th of Jan. 2008. My consultant filed for my H1B to begin from the 1st Oct. 2007. For any one in my situation (F1 to H1B), please do not let go of your valuable OPT time, in lieu of H1B, how much ever influential the consultant is (in terms of getting you a project). They would always want you to begin at the earliest so they can be assured of your services with them. Make sure they put down your begin date, only after the last date of OPT period on the H1B documentation.
So, in my situation, I do not have a valid reason to re enter the US. That is why I want to get my visa transferred over here. Considering I do not have pay stubs, a lot is dependant on my fate, I guess. Thanks for your reply.
I was on F1 visa. I had my OPT valid up to the 15th of Jan. 2008. My consultant filed for my H1B to begin from the 1st Oct. 2007. For any one in my situation (F1 to H1B), please do not let go of your valuable OPT time, in lieu of H1B, how much ever influential the consultant is (in terms of getting you a project). They would always want you to begin at the earliest so they can be assured of your services with them. Make sure they put down your begin date, only after the last date of OPT period on the H1B documentation.
So, in my situation, I do not have a valid reason to re enter the US. That is why I want to get my visa transferred over here. Considering I do not have pay stubs, a lot is dependant on my fate, I guess. Thanks for your reply.
more...
a_yaja
07-30 03:43 PM
If you don't know the answer, please don't reply. Just because this person asked about getting GC through his/ her baby, it does not mean the person is here illegally or if even this person is in the US. I friend of mine died in an accident in Mumbai and he is survived by his wife and two kids (the kids were born here in the US). His wife asked me the same question and after asking my lawyer, I had to tell her that there is no way she can apply for GC through her children unless her children turn 21.
paskal
12-26 05:04 PM
please feel free to join in
those from other states asking this question: you are very welcome
Dial-In #: 1-218-486-1300
Bridge: 405416
9pm cst
those from other states asking this question: you are very welcome
Dial-In #: 1-218-486-1300
Bridge: 405416
9pm cst
more...
gcformeornot
08-09 09:08 PM
It has nothing to do with EB Immigration
2010 (katy,tx). Homemade Butterfly
hnordberg
November 26th, 2005, 05:58 PM
I prefer the dark one. It is more interesting and would work well in a gallery. Well done!
more...
arjunpa
08-18 10:32 AM
Hello
Case details
--Lay off with Employer A happened in April and I was without a job for a couple of months
--I have a valid Visa with employer A until April 2010.
--Finally found a job as a consultant, employer B applied for my H1B.
--RFE has been answered with sufficient documents and awaiting a response.
Question
I read/hear that since there is a 2 month period with no paystubs, I might get an approval for I-797 but without I-94. In such a case what actions should be taken.
Please advice.
Thanks!
Case details
--Lay off with Employer A happened in April and I was without a job for a couple of months
--I have a valid Visa with employer A until April 2010.
--Finally found a job as a consultant, employer B applied for my H1B.
--RFE has been answered with sufficient documents and awaiting a response.
Question
I read/hear that since there is a 2 month period with no paystubs, I might get an approval for I-797 but without I-94. In such a case what actions should be taken.
Please advice.
Thanks!
hair pictures happy irthday mum
chi_shark
07-07 11:00 AM
as i experienced, almost all attorneys will ask you to file ac21. some attorneys charge as much as $1000 each time you change jobs... its ka-ching for them...
as for not wasting time when pd is currrent... i absolve you of that crime :-) jk... but IMHO you really cannot influence the outcome of this process by being quick on your part except ensuring continuation of the process...
as for the original question: you need not have to convince anyone about EAD... as someone else pointed out, the first page of the I-9 form states clearly that its illegal to discriminate based on immigration status... if you are in IT, there are umpteen examples of what you are trying to do (yours truly included)... just play it easy... best of luck...
with the lack of regulation on AC 21 law, each attorney's take different position when it comes to handling AC 21 cases, in my case the primary reason driven to file AC 21 is the small window of period available in getting I 485 adjudicated when the PD is current, so I don't want to loose time when the PD is current and get an RFE from USCIS and running back and forth to get the RFE responded before loosing PD, more over I took the 20 minute counselling with Murthy law firm and they advised to notify USCIS about employer change.Later I was fortunate that USCIS did not issue RFE(may be it helped USCIS by notifying them in advance and clear their doubt) and approve my I 485 when PD was current.
Cheers
Kris
as for not wasting time when pd is currrent... i absolve you of that crime :-) jk... but IMHO you really cannot influence the outcome of this process by being quick on your part except ensuring continuation of the process...
as for the original question: you need not have to convince anyone about EAD... as someone else pointed out, the first page of the I-9 form states clearly that its illegal to discriminate based on immigration status... if you are in IT, there are umpteen examples of what you are trying to do (yours truly included)... just play it easy... best of luck...
with the lack of regulation on AC 21 law, each attorney's take different position when it comes to handling AC 21 cases, in my case the primary reason driven to file AC 21 is the small window of period available in getting I 485 adjudicated when the PD is current, so I don't want to loose time when the PD is current and get an RFE from USCIS and running back and forth to get the RFE responded before loosing PD, more over I took the 20 minute counselling with Murthy law firm and they advised to notify USCIS about employer change.Later I was fortunate that USCIS did not issue RFE(may be it helped USCIS by notifying them in advance and clear their doubt) and approve my I 485 when PD was current.
Cheers
Kris
more...
leo2606
04-12 02:20 PM
A person I know of did not get paid for about 2 years but this guy went to India for stamping in Delhi.He filed a law suite against his employer before he leaves. He showed all the documents related with the case when asked and got his visa.So I am thinking your reply will not jeopardize your H1B.You have evidence that you moved of this company and filed H1- B transfer knowing the company is bad.
Again you definetly need to consult an attorney like Murthy or Khanna to talk about this.I think you can get immediate consultation if you call their office, obviously they charge.I think it is worth spending so that you will not have mental tension.
Again you definetly need to consult an attorney like Murthy or Khanna to talk about this.I think you can get immediate consultation if you call their office, obviously they charge.I think it is worth spending so that you will not have mental tension.
hot NEW Fox Run 4 pc Cake Stencil
Lasantha
08-16 12:33 PM
Australia is another option.
http://www.immi.gov.au/
http://www.immi.gov.au/
more...
house irthday cake template for
kirupa
03-31 01:56 PM
I e-mailed my colleague (http://blog.sunnypixels.com/) who worked on this, and she suggested checking the PDF compatibility button before exporting. Does your file have that option?
Thanks,
Kirupa :)
Thanks,
Kirupa :)
tattoo irthday cake stencil.
xgoogle
08-20 01:48 PM
I just called USCIS and according to the person I spoke with, it takes approximately 30 days from the date of approval of primary applicant for approval of dependents.
I doubt if that is the case. I know people where the whole family got it.
Also check out this other thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=279578&posted=1#post279578
I doubt if that is the case. I know people where the whole family got it.
Also check out this other thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=279578&posted=1#post279578
more...
pictures I had a stencil and everything
aph0025
11-12 12:24 PM
it depends on USCIS officer. i had a good lawer when I applied for h1b transfer. i got stuck for one 15 days paycheck. eventually it is cleared after submitting the paper work. having good lawer is not enough. depends on your luck or USCIS officer also
Thanks for your input. So, the pay stub that you submitted, was it from your previous employer, or the one you got your visa transferred to? Hey, if you don't mind, can I have your lawyer�s contact details?
Thanks for your input. So, the pay stub that you submitted, was it from your previous employer, or the one you got your visa transferred to? Hey, if you don't mind, can I have your lawyer�s contact details?
dresses This cake was so big it was
belmontboy
07-31 01:04 PM
I would like to know what are the primary reasons why employers revokes approved I-140 after invoking AC21 after 180 days.
a. I think one of the reason is Labor substitution. If they want to use it for someone else. Now that this is eliminated, I think there will be minimal chances of revocation in future.
b. Do big companies like Infy, Wipro do this?
c. They could revoke because of problems between employer and employees...I think we need to be patient and work this out..
Please reply with ur inputs.
Wipro doesnot sponsor GC's that much.
a. I think one of the reason is Labor substitution. If they want to use it for someone else. Now that this is eliminated, I think there will be minimal chances of revocation in future.
b. Do big companies like Infy, Wipro do this?
c. They could revoke because of problems between employer and employees...I think we need to be patient and work this out..
Please reply with ur inputs.
Wipro doesnot sponsor GC's that much.
more...
makeup irthday cake — Real Heart
leoindiano
07-09 01:34 PM
looks like TSC is the one worked so hard to drain 485 apps and taking rest now....:)
girlfriend Birthday Cake, Stencil and Gum
sgorla
02-20 04:51 PM
If you filed in PERM system, you should be able to find your case. I was able to see my case based on the LC case number. DOL has database for fiscal years 2003 thru 2006.
This is useful, but I doubt its accuracy because some of the cases I know - including mine - are missing !!
This is useful, but I doubt its accuracy because some of the cases I know - including mine - are missing !!
hairstyles 100th Birthday Cake
wildcat1313
03-26 02:08 AM
Yesterday, I went for my H1b stamping but was issued a 221G. I had all documents that the VO asked for.
1. Client Letter with detailed job descriptions.
2. Vendor Letter with detailed job requirements and skillsets required
3. Contract between my company & Vendor.
4. Work-Order from client to vendor.
5. All W2/pay Slips
6. Company Tax return for last 2 years.
7. Unemployment wage report
8. Notarized copy of all employees with location, salary, start date , end date.
9. Copy of filing with USCIS.
10. All timesheets esablishing employee/employer relationship as well as billing timesheets
VO refused the visa saying he wants to see the contract between employer & end client. Vendor is saying they cannot provide it because of legal issues but are willing to provide a detailed letter stating the same.
I have been with the same employer for last 7 years and never been on bench with I-140 approved. Have worked for same client earlier for 4 years, took a break as I was bored, worked for another client for a year, came back and have been working there for last 2 years now. Client is very co-operative and is willing to help in anyway they can as they need my services.
What are my chances of getting tbe visa without the original contract?
I had to travel to India because of a family emergency. My family is in US as kids are in school. I would really appreciate if you can answer.
1. Client Letter with detailed job descriptions.
2. Vendor Letter with detailed job requirements and skillsets required
3. Contract between my company & Vendor.
4. Work-Order from client to vendor.
5. All W2/pay Slips
6. Company Tax return for last 2 years.
7. Unemployment wage report
8. Notarized copy of all employees with location, salary, start date , end date.
9. Copy of filing with USCIS.
10. All timesheets esablishing employee/employer relationship as well as billing timesheets
VO refused the visa saying he wants to see the contract between employer & end client. Vendor is saying they cannot provide it because of legal issues but are willing to provide a detailed letter stating the same.
I have been with the same employer for last 7 years and never been on bench with I-140 approved. Have worked for same client earlier for 4 years, took a break as I was bored, worked for another client for a year, came back and have been working there for last 2 years now. Client is very co-operative and is willing to help in anyway they can as they need my services.
What are my chances of getting tbe visa without the original contract?
I had to travel to India because of a family emergency. My family is in US as kids are in school. I would really appreciate if you can answer.
arrarrgee
07-17 02:39 PM
I second that...Why should there be a link between his req and his contribution? If we are able to answer/clarify whatever doubt he has..probably he would see the value in continuing with the group and probably contribute too...else no first timers would ever wanna join us
can you please help me link the connection between my request and my contribution to IV? I fail to undersand your point!
can you please help me link the connection between my request and my contribution to IV? I fail to undersand your point!
IV2007
05-11 10:13 AM
Guys,
I found this site where in we can send letters to our senate members or house representatives regarding the issues we face.
http://capwiz.com/aila2/issues/alert/?alertid=9589591
Letter content pre-exists if needed you can change.
Let's inundate senate & other members with what we are facing..
-IV2007
EB2 Labor Pending
I found this site where in we can send letters to our senate members or house representatives regarding the issues we face.
http://capwiz.com/aila2/issues/alert/?alertid=9589591
Letter content pre-exists if needed you can change.
Let's inundate senate & other members with what we are facing..
-IV2007
EB2 Labor Pending
No comments:
Post a Comment