raysaikat
01-29 12:22 PM
My sister got her H-1B in 2008 but didn't work for her employer due to health problems. After about 3 to 4 months she left for India and recovered. Over there she joined a multi-national who sent her on B1 this year. (She already had traveled on B1 from a very old employer and used that).
Now after coming here on B1, she has a job offer from an Indian MNC. My understanding is that the MNC will have to file two petitions:
1. A Change of Status from B1 to H1B
2. A I-129 requesting H-1B (or H-1B transfer)
Question -
a) Can she start working for the Indian MNC after filing both of these two, or will we have to wait for both approvals?
She must wait for H1-B approval (I-797) form. In addition, if the I-797 does not have an attached I-94, then she must go out of the country, get H1-B stamped (if she does not have one) and reenter on H1-B VISA before she can start working.
b) Do we require paystubs from the original H-1B employer from 2008 for H-1B transfer? My understanding is that paystubs are usually required to establish one is currently in status, but she is on B1 right now and not H1B.
Attorneys, please advise.
Much thanks in advance,
P
Now after coming here on B1, she has a job offer from an Indian MNC. My understanding is that the MNC will have to file two petitions:
1. A Change of Status from B1 to H1B
2. A I-129 requesting H-1B (or H-1B transfer)
Question -
a) Can she start working for the Indian MNC after filing both of these two, or will we have to wait for both approvals?
She must wait for H1-B approval (I-797) form. In addition, if the I-797 does not have an attached I-94, then she must go out of the country, get H1-B stamped (if she does not have one) and reenter on H1-B VISA before she can start working.
b) Do we require paystubs from the original H-1B employer from 2008 for H-1B transfer? My understanding is that paystubs are usually required to establish one is currently in status, but she is on B1 right now and not H1B.
Attorneys, please advise.
Much thanks in advance,
P
wallpaper Toyota Celica GT Sp Edition
cool_guy_onnet1
06-01 01:49 PM
Hers's the SOURCE...
http://www.shusterman.com/toc-it.html#B
FIRST ITEM IN THE LIST
Let's fill the mailboxes over the weekend... I am driving to Atlantic city-- Worse the traffic, better for IV!! I will be calling for 3 full hours! Love my Blackberry 8800, fill in the numbers and just keep calling using "auto dial next feature"!
http://www.shusterman.com/toc-it.html#B
First ITEM in the list
http://www.shusterman.com/toc-it.html#B
FIRST ITEM IN THE LIST
Let's fill the mailboxes over the weekend... I am driving to Atlantic city-- Worse the traffic, better for IV!! I will be calling for 3 full hours! Love my Blackberry 8800, fill in the numbers and just keep calling using "auto dial next feature"!
http://www.shusterman.com/toc-it.html#B
First ITEM in the list
mikemeyers
12-26 05:42 PM
According to my knowledge, going back to F-1 is your best bet. The reason is whether u are legal in the country or not while ur H1 application is pending is decided by USCIS by approving change of status. If they don't u will be out of status, u have to leave the country and come back. but if you r on f-1, u'll be in legal status all the time. Just make sure, u transfer ur SEVIS I-20 before 60-day OPT grace period expires. Then, u'll be able to avoid worst case scenarios of being out of status in case ur H-1 is approved but change of status is not.
2011 Melissa#39;s Toyota Celica GT
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.
more...
ebizash
03-31 03:44 PM
I wonder why his/her handle is "webPromo"??? hmm... promoting "something" on the web...:D.
Berkeleybee
04-03 04:36 PM
brb2, Thanks for pointing it out. Actually the figure of 15% makes our case stronger. We will have it changed.
Seeing as how I and Stuck labor were the ones to put that National Interest Fact sheet together thought I should respond:
The NAS report is available at http://fermat.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html
The document is quoting from page ES-8 of the NAS report -- I'm cutting and pasting from the document
"In Germany, 36% of undergraduates receive their degrees in science and engineering. In China, the
figure is 59%, and in Japan 66%. In the United States, the corresponding figure is 32%."
The NAS document end note says "Based on data from Data are from National Science Board. 2004. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004 (NSB 04-01). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Appendix Table 2-33."
The document you have linked to says
In South Korea, 38% of all undergraduates receive their degrees in natural science or engineering. In France, the figure is 47%, in China, 50%, and in Singapore 67%. In the United States, the corresponding figure is 15%.27 In South Korea, 38% of all undergraduates receive their degrees in natural science or engineering. In France, the figure is 47%, in China, 50%, and in Singapore 67%. In the United States, the corresponding figure is 15%.
And the document footnote says
Analysis conducted by the Association of American Universities. 2006. National Defense Education and Innovation Initiative. Based on data in National Science Board. 2004. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004 (NSB 04-01). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Appendix Table 2-33. For countries with both short and long degrees, the ratios are calculated with both short and long degrees as the numerator.
So this is pretty odd -- both are based on the same base dataset, and it looks like the second document calculates the % differently. Also not sure why one says "science and engineering" and the other says "natural science and engineering"
Seeing as how I and Stuck labor were the ones to put that National Interest Fact sheet together thought I should respond:
The NAS report is available at http://fermat.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html
The document is quoting from page ES-8 of the NAS report -- I'm cutting and pasting from the document
"In Germany, 36% of undergraduates receive their degrees in science and engineering. In China, the
figure is 59%, and in Japan 66%. In the United States, the corresponding figure is 32%."
The NAS document end note says "Based on data from Data are from National Science Board. 2004. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004 (NSB 04-01). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Appendix Table 2-33."
The document you have linked to says
In South Korea, 38% of all undergraduates receive their degrees in natural science or engineering. In France, the figure is 47%, in China, 50%, and in Singapore 67%. In the United States, the corresponding figure is 15%.27 In South Korea, 38% of all undergraduates receive their degrees in natural science or engineering. In France, the figure is 47%, in China, 50%, and in Singapore 67%. In the United States, the corresponding figure is 15%.
And the document footnote says
Analysis conducted by the Association of American Universities. 2006. National Defense Education and Innovation Initiative. Based on data in National Science Board. 2004. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004 (NSB 04-01). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Appendix Table 2-33. For countries with both short and long degrees, the ratios are calculated with both short and long degrees as the numerator.
So this is pretty odd -- both are based on the same base dataset, and it looks like the second document calculates the % differently. Also not sure why one says "science and engineering" and the other says "natural science and engineering"
more...
nixstor
12-01 04:09 PM
Thanks for your input guys. can the job description be changed now for an labor petition that has been filed before? My lawyer made me fill a questionnare and lot of other things about what I do. She picked up main lines from my resume and filled it up on my job description.
2010 Sporty Toyota Celica In Red
Scythe
11-29 02:34 AM
Gah, I knew it! :deranged:
more...
kranti_veer
08-13 01:52 AM
looks like vldrao got his GC and took a hike ;)
Yea...expect to have Vldrao back after the visa bulletin is out.
Where is mr. rao?
Yea...expect to have Vldrao back after the visa bulletin is out.
Where is mr. rao?
hair Toyota Celica GT4 ST205: click
CCC
07-05 02:19 PM
Hello,
I am in desparate need of some advice. I have an approved I-140 (11/28/2006) and my 485 was filed under my wife's GC application in June 07. I would like to leave my current company A and join another company B asap. I have 3 days to accept the offer.
a. Is it possible for me to port my I-140 to company B?
b. If its possible will i be able to keep the PD?
I did some research on the AC21 act and it seems that its ok to move companies after 180 days of getting the EAD card. But I could not figure out if the I-140 could also be ported over to company B.
Thanks in advance.
I am in desparate need of some advice. I have an approved I-140 (11/28/2006) and my 485 was filed under my wife's GC application in June 07. I would like to leave my current company A and join another company B asap. I have 3 days to accept the offer.
a. Is it possible for me to port my I-140 to company B?
b. If its possible will i be able to keep the PD?
I did some research on the AC21 act and it seems that its ok to move companies after 180 days of getting the EAD card. But I could not figure out if the I-140 could also be ported over to company B.
Thanks in advance.
more...
prem_goel
08-05 05:15 PM
that is totally illegal and if it happens and if someone complains to DOL then the employer will be in "Lake Soup"
Agreed with above. Fill out WH-4 ESA. Google it and you'll get it. Turnaround time sometimes is around 2-3 months but you'll see definite action.
Agreed with above. Fill out WH-4 ESA. Google it and you'll get it. Turnaround time sometimes is around 2-3 months but you'll see definite action.
hot 2001 Toyota Celica GT picture
eb3_nepa
02-22 05:57 PM
Hello everyone,
I have a question abt the recent contributions. Of late i have seen a SHARP drop in contributions. Have we reached a plateau now, or are the contributions not updated live?
Also i have a question abt what the agreement is with QGA. Do they do nothing till we pay the $200k or do they do things in installments (like our immigration lawyers ;)). A lot of non members, but possibly potential contributors keep asking me abt the same. If the board can answer this question i would appreciate it. If you do not want to post that info on here, please send me a Private Message.
I have a question abt the recent contributions. Of late i have seen a SHARP drop in contributions. Have we reached a plateau now, or are the contributions not updated live?
Also i have a question abt what the agreement is with QGA. Do they do nothing till we pay the $200k or do they do things in installments (like our immigration lawyers ;)). A lot of non members, but possibly potential contributors keep asking me abt the same. If the board can answer this question i would appreciate it. If you do not want to post that info on here, please send me a Private Message.
more...
house 1976 TOYOTA CELICA TA22 GT
NikNikon
May 24th, 2005, 09:21 AM
Cool, I learned something new today. I guess I knew the concept of the polarizer but had yet to learn all of the ins and outs. Thanks Josh.
Linear vs. Circular has mainly to do with whether it works with metering and autofocus sensors in modern cameras. Both polarizers rotate and function similarly (I'm not sure if there is any difference in the effect shown in the image, but I doubt it).
Anyway, an unevenly polarized sky happens not because the polarizer is not rotated properly / enough, but rather because the camera is not quite at a 90 degree angle to the sun; this uneven polarization becomes more noticeable with wide angle lenses (to a point, then as even wider lenses are used, the sky will get dark in the middle and lighter on the edges even right at 90 degrees from the sun).
Linear vs. Circular has mainly to do with whether it works with metering and autofocus sensors in modern cameras. Both polarizers rotate and function similarly (I'm not sure if there is any difference in the effect shown in the image, but I doubt it).
Anyway, an unevenly polarized sky happens not because the polarizer is not rotated properly / enough, but rather because the camera is not quite at a 90 degree angle to the sun; this uneven polarization becomes more noticeable with wide angle lenses (to a point, then as even wider lenses are used, the sky will get dark in the middle and lighter on the edges even right at 90 degrees from the sun).