Macaca
06-19 07:30 AM
House Delays Thorny Energy Issues (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118221331128639861-search.html?KEYWORDS=immigration&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month) By John J. Fialka, The Wall Street Journal, 19 June 2007
WASHINGTON -- Facing a tight deadline imposed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leaders of the Energy and Commerce Committee postponed until the fall House debates on several controversial energy issues, including tougher standards for automobile fuel efficiency.
It wasn't immediately clear what impact the House move toward a simplified, less-controversial energy measure will have on the Senate version of the bill. The Senate is scheduled to debate auto-efficiency standards and a mandate for coal-based liquid fuels on the floor this week.
Rep. John D. Dingell (D., Mich.), chairman of the House committee, and Rick Boucher (D., Va.) chairman of the subcommittee that is preparing its energy legislation, jointly announced they will focus on less-divisive issues, including energy-efficiency standards for appliances, improvements to the nation's electricity grid and incentives for use of wind power.
"This procedure . . . was discussed with the speaker, and she understands the rationale for proceeding this way," the two Democrat leaders said, "so we can rapidly work on a bipartisan bill that can be signed into law."
The turnaround by Rep. Dingell, who has defended Detroit automakers against fuel-saving standards for years, comes as automakers have launched a nationwide lobbying campaign to water down proposed tougher auto-efficiency standards. Rep. Dingell promised to return to the issue in the fall, when the committee is also planning legislation that would regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions that scientists say are accelerating global warming.
While the Senate appears to be pressing ahead, it could face filibuster threats on the auto-efficiency standards and several other items, requiring 60 votes to overcome, a margin that may not be attainable. "One of the questions being discussed is which body goes first with some of these things," a House aide said.
"We have decided to proceed with provisions that represent consensus," Messrs. Dingell and Boucher wrote. The energy subcommittee is scheduled to assemble its new version of the energy bill this week, and the House could debate the completed bill after the July 4 recess. Earlier, Speaker Pelosi (D., Calif.) had asked for an "Energy Independence" bill by July 4.
The House committee also deferred discussion of a low-carbon-fuel standard, similar to California's, which would mandate increasing use of ethanol and other fuels that result in lower CO2 emissions. Another postponed issue is a change in federal law that would block California from establishing its own CO2 emissions standards for vehicles.
The two committee leaders said they were postponing debate because the issues "are complex and difficult."
Democrats are deeply split, with representatives from auto-producing states fighting tougher emissions standards, and the California delegation and liberal factions pushing for them. Coal-state Democrats and environmentally inclined Democrats are on opposite sides over coal-to-liquid fuels, which would emphasize diesel and jet fuels made from coal, a fuel the U.S. has in abundance.
WASHINGTON -- Facing a tight deadline imposed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leaders of the Energy and Commerce Committee postponed until the fall House debates on several controversial energy issues, including tougher standards for automobile fuel efficiency.
It wasn't immediately clear what impact the House move toward a simplified, less-controversial energy measure will have on the Senate version of the bill. The Senate is scheduled to debate auto-efficiency standards and a mandate for coal-based liquid fuels on the floor this week.
Rep. John D. Dingell (D., Mich.), chairman of the House committee, and Rick Boucher (D., Va.) chairman of the subcommittee that is preparing its energy legislation, jointly announced they will focus on less-divisive issues, including energy-efficiency standards for appliances, improvements to the nation's electricity grid and incentives for use of wind power.
"This procedure . . . was discussed with the speaker, and she understands the rationale for proceeding this way," the two Democrat leaders said, "so we can rapidly work on a bipartisan bill that can be signed into law."
The turnaround by Rep. Dingell, who has defended Detroit automakers against fuel-saving standards for years, comes as automakers have launched a nationwide lobbying campaign to water down proposed tougher auto-efficiency standards. Rep. Dingell promised to return to the issue in the fall, when the committee is also planning legislation that would regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions that scientists say are accelerating global warming.
While the Senate appears to be pressing ahead, it could face filibuster threats on the auto-efficiency standards and several other items, requiring 60 votes to overcome, a margin that may not be attainable. "One of the questions being discussed is which body goes first with some of these things," a House aide said.
"We have decided to proceed with provisions that represent consensus," Messrs. Dingell and Boucher wrote. The energy subcommittee is scheduled to assemble its new version of the energy bill this week, and the House could debate the completed bill after the July 4 recess. Earlier, Speaker Pelosi (D., Calif.) had asked for an "Energy Independence" bill by July 4.
The House committee also deferred discussion of a low-carbon-fuel standard, similar to California's, which would mandate increasing use of ethanol and other fuels that result in lower CO2 emissions. Another postponed issue is a change in federal law that would block California from establishing its own CO2 emissions standards for vehicles.
The two committee leaders said they were postponing debate because the issues "are complex and difficult."
Democrats are deeply split, with representatives from auto-producing states fighting tougher emissions standards, and the California delegation and liberal factions pushing for them. Coal-state Democrats and environmentally inclined Democrats are on opposite sides over coal-to-liquid fuels, which would emphasize diesel and jet fuels made from coal, a fuel the U.S. has in abundance.
wallpaper animated smiley faces.
green.card
12-10 09:59 PM
Guys,
Please help me...I do not have much knowledge about GC process. I am working on H1B visa from last 3 years with my current employer and they are ready to apply for GC but, I know that for GC in the same position I cannot use the experience gained during past 3 years. But if I apply for GC for the next level (as GC is for future employment) with the current experience and keep working in my current role until my GC is approved, do you guys see any problem with that? GC approval will easily take 4-5 years and during this time I can keep working in my current position and once GC is approved I can switch to the next level which is kind of promotion.
Thanks in advance for your suggestions.
Please help me...I do not have much knowledge about GC process. I am working on H1B visa from last 3 years with my current employer and they are ready to apply for GC but, I know that for GC in the same position I cannot use the experience gained during past 3 years. But if I apply for GC for the next level (as GC is for future employment) with the current experience and keep working in my current role until my GC is approved, do you guys see any problem with that? GC approval will easily take 4-5 years and during this time I can keep working in my current position and once GC is approved I can switch to the next level which is kind of promotion.
Thanks in advance for your suggestions.
Dhundhun
11-03 02:16 AM
Thanks Glus.
2011 art animated. smiley face
Blog Feeds
05-27 08:30 AM
Antis point to polls showing more Americans support the Arizona bill than oppose it. But other polls - including new ones from ImmigrationWorks USA and Immigration Voice, show these same voters also support - by wide margins - comprehensive immigration reform proposals that contain legalization programs. Is this really a contradictory result? Maybe not. Americans want ACTION on immigration reform rather than maintaining the status quo. Action can mean an SB1070 or something on a broader scale - even if it is called "amnesty." Here are slides outlining the ImmigrationWorks poll. Keep an eye on polling of Republican voters who...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/polls-show-public-wants-action-on-immigration-reform.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/polls-show-public-wants-action-on-immigration-reform.html)
more...
rodnyb
11-27 04:04 PM
I was searching on all programmer salary's on SalaryList.com (http://salarylist.com), it looks like we are much higher than the other majors, business analyst, finance analyst. So if I want to do AC21, in current condition, should I keep same salary? Several companies I talk to can only match now
digiscott
March 2nd, 2005, 04:07 PM
only twice
more...
axp817
01-04 03:25 PM
Has anyone been in a situation where they joined a new employer after having completed 180 days after 485-filing, and sent in AC-21 documentation through an attorney?
If so, which attorney did you choose for the AC-21 paperwork?
- The old attorney, that represented you and your ex-employer, and filed your labor, 140, 485, EAD, AP
- or the attorney representing the new company
- or a third attorney that you went and found on your own
What do you think is the best way to go, if there is a best way to go?
Your response is highly appreciated.
Thanks,
If so, which attorney did you choose for the AC-21 paperwork?
- The old attorney, that represented you and your ex-employer, and filed your labor, 140, 485, EAD, AP
- or the attorney representing the new company
- or a third attorney that you went and found on your own
What do you think is the best way to go, if there is a best way to go?
Your response is highly appreciated.
Thanks,
2010 images Smiley Face cute pics
pappu
07-27 11:57 AM
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/AC21
Hope this helps
Hope this helps
more...
esurfer
01-24 11:00 AM
Is it possible to upgrade a pending I-485 (EB3 I-140) with a newly approved EB2 I-140?
Is there any USCIS mandated procedure to do that?
Is there any USCIS mandated procedure to do that?
hair animated smiley faces. free
Macaca
11-28 07:49 AM
As Lott Leaves the Senate, Compromise Appears to Be a Lost Art (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/27/AR2007112702358.html) By Jonathan Weisman | Washington Post, November 28, 2007; A04
In January, as a dormant Senate chamber entered its fourth hour of inaction and a major ethics bill lay tangled in knots, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) took to the Senate floor with a plaintive plea.
"Here we are, the sun has set on Thursday. It is a quarter to 6. The sun officially went down at 5:13. We are like bats," the veteran lawmaker lamented to a near-empty chamber. "Hello, it is a quarter to 6. . . . I have called everybody involved. I have been to offices. I have been stirring around, scurrying around. Is there an agenda here?"
The next 10 months appear to have given him the answer. A major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws went down in flames. Just two of a dozen annual spending bills passed Congress, and one of those was vetoed. Repeated efforts to force a course change in Iraq ended in recrimination and stalemate. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) filed 56 motions to break off filibusters to try to complete legislation, a total that is nearing the record of 61 such "cloture motions" in a two-year Congress.
And on Monday, Lott, one of the Senate's consummate dealmakers, called it quits.
"Is he the most frustrated he's ever been? Probably not," said David Hoppe, Lott's longtime chief of staff, now with the lobbying firm Quinn, Gillespie & Associates. "But frustration is cumulative."
Lott's departure from Capitol Hill in the coming weeks after 34 years in Congress -- 16 in the House, 18 in the Senate -- is further evidence that bonhomie and cross-party negotiating are losing their currency, even in the backslapping Senate. With the Senate populated by a record number of former House members, the rules of the Old Boys' Club are giving way to the partisan trench warfare and party-line votes that prevail in the House. States once represented by common-ground dealmakers, including John Breaux (D-La.), David L. Boren (D-Okla.), James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) and Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), are now electing ideological stalwarts, such as David Vitter (R-La.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).
"The Senate is predicated on the ability of people being able to work together," said former senator Don Nickles (R-Okla.), who was majority whip for much of Lott's years as majority leader. "I'm not throwing rocks at anybody, but there's just been a lot less of that."
Former majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) agreed: "Senator Lott's resignation means the loss of one of the few Republicans in leadership who often excelled in finding compromise and common ground."
Lott has never been a policy moderate, inclined to reach agreement with Democrats on ideological grounds. But he has almost always been a pragmatist, relishing the art of the deal. Just last month, as he labored to crack a wall of Democratic opposition to the confirmation of U.S. Appeals Judge Leslie H. Southwick, Lott wondered aloud to an aide why he was working so hard for a man he did not really know and for someone who was much more closely allied with Mississippi's other Republican senator, Thad Cochran.
"I said to him, 'You know, it's not that you like Southwick. You just like the process. You want the deal,' and he just smiled," recalled the Lott aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was divulging private deliberations. "It was a game. It was, 'Let me figure out how to get this done.' "
Such dealmakers still wander the Senate's halls: Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah.). And others could arise as a generation schooled in pragmatism -- such as John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) -- heads for the exits next year.
"Just because an individual leaves doesn't mean you're not going to find new centers to structure work in the United States Senate," said Eric Ueland, chief of staff to former majority leader (R-Tenn.). Lott would "be the first to say that no individual is indispensable."
But with the Senate almost dysfunctional, those new power centers are difficult to find.
"The Senate is still a great deliberative body," Nickles said. "But it's a little less congenial and a little too partisan."
Lott made a career out of the art of the deal. In the summer of 1996, after then-Sen. Robert J. Dole resigned to pursue the White House full time, Lott took the reins of a Senate that had ground to a halt as Democrats moved to thwart GOP accomplishments ahead of the presidential election. Lott implored his colleagues to act.
In short order, Congress approved a major overhaul of the nation's welfare laws, cleared a bevy of other bills and cut a deal with the Clinton White House on annual spending bills. After the election, Hoppe recalled, Clinton called Lott to joke that had he not gotten the Senate back on track, the Democrats might well have recaptured a chamber of Congress.
The next year, White House Chief of Staff Erskine B. Bowles and Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin -- both wealthy Wall Street financiers -- sat huddled in Lott's office, as Lott and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) tried to cut a final deal on a balanced budget agreement that included a cut to the capital gains tax rate.
"There they were, two Democrats who had been very successful in business, squaring off with two Republicans who didn't have two nickels to rub together," Hoppe recalled.
They struck a deal: Cut the capital gains rate and create a major federal program to offer health insurance to children of the working poor.
After the 2000 election, which left the Senate deadlocked at 50 seats apiece, Lott again struck a deal that angered many in his party. Although Republicans technically had control of the Senate with the vote of newly elected Vice President Cheney, Lott and Daschle agreed to evenly divide the committees. Moreover, they agreed, if one party won a majority midstream, either through a party switch, a resignation or a death, the other party would agree to relinquish control without a fight.
Lott reasoned that the deadlocked Senate could waste the first months of George W. Bush's fledgling presidency in a process fight, or he could relent early and get to work.
But such deals are getting harder to come by.
On June 7, as Lott absorbed increasingly virulent attacks from conservatives for his support of a bipartisan immigration overhaul, he took to the Senate floor for another appeal.
"This is the time where we are going to see whether we are a Senate anymore," he intoned. "Are we men or mice? Are we going to slither away from this issue and hope for some epiphany to happen? No. Let's legislate. Let's vote."
Three weeks later, the immigration bill fell to a Republican filibuster, and Congress slithered away from the issue.
In January, as a dormant Senate chamber entered its fourth hour of inaction and a major ethics bill lay tangled in knots, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) took to the Senate floor with a plaintive plea.
"Here we are, the sun has set on Thursday. It is a quarter to 6. The sun officially went down at 5:13. We are like bats," the veteran lawmaker lamented to a near-empty chamber. "Hello, it is a quarter to 6. . . . I have called everybody involved. I have been to offices. I have been stirring around, scurrying around. Is there an agenda here?"
The next 10 months appear to have given him the answer. A major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws went down in flames. Just two of a dozen annual spending bills passed Congress, and one of those was vetoed. Repeated efforts to force a course change in Iraq ended in recrimination and stalemate. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) filed 56 motions to break off filibusters to try to complete legislation, a total that is nearing the record of 61 such "cloture motions" in a two-year Congress.
And on Monday, Lott, one of the Senate's consummate dealmakers, called it quits.
"Is he the most frustrated he's ever been? Probably not," said David Hoppe, Lott's longtime chief of staff, now with the lobbying firm Quinn, Gillespie & Associates. "But frustration is cumulative."
Lott's departure from Capitol Hill in the coming weeks after 34 years in Congress -- 16 in the House, 18 in the Senate -- is further evidence that bonhomie and cross-party negotiating are losing their currency, even in the backslapping Senate. With the Senate populated by a record number of former House members, the rules of the Old Boys' Club are giving way to the partisan trench warfare and party-line votes that prevail in the House. States once represented by common-ground dealmakers, including John Breaux (D-La.), David L. Boren (D-Okla.), James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) and Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), are now electing ideological stalwarts, such as David Vitter (R-La.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).
"The Senate is predicated on the ability of people being able to work together," said former senator Don Nickles (R-Okla.), who was majority whip for much of Lott's years as majority leader. "I'm not throwing rocks at anybody, but there's just been a lot less of that."
Former majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) agreed: "Senator Lott's resignation means the loss of one of the few Republicans in leadership who often excelled in finding compromise and common ground."
Lott has never been a policy moderate, inclined to reach agreement with Democrats on ideological grounds. But he has almost always been a pragmatist, relishing the art of the deal. Just last month, as he labored to crack a wall of Democratic opposition to the confirmation of U.S. Appeals Judge Leslie H. Southwick, Lott wondered aloud to an aide why he was working so hard for a man he did not really know and for someone who was much more closely allied with Mississippi's other Republican senator, Thad Cochran.
"I said to him, 'You know, it's not that you like Southwick. You just like the process. You want the deal,' and he just smiled," recalled the Lott aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was divulging private deliberations. "It was a game. It was, 'Let me figure out how to get this done.' "
Such dealmakers still wander the Senate's halls: Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah.). And others could arise as a generation schooled in pragmatism -- such as John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) -- heads for the exits next year.
"Just because an individual leaves doesn't mean you're not going to find new centers to structure work in the United States Senate," said Eric Ueland, chief of staff to former majority leader (R-Tenn.). Lott would "be the first to say that no individual is indispensable."
But with the Senate almost dysfunctional, those new power centers are difficult to find.
"The Senate is still a great deliberative body," Nickles said. "But it's a little less congenial and a little too partisan."
Lott made a career out of the art of the deal. In the summer of 1996, after then-Sen. Robert J. Dole resigned to pursue the White House full time, Lott took the reins of a Senate that had ground to a halt as Democrats moved to thwart GOP accomplishments ahead of the presidential election. Lott implored his colleagues to act.
In short order, Congress approved a major overhaul of the nation's welfare laws, cleared a bevy of other bills and cut a deal with the Clinton White House on annual spending bills. After the election, Hoppe recalled, Clinton called Lott to joke that had he not gotten the Senate back on track, the Democrats might well have recaptured a chamber of Congress.
The next year, White House Chief of Staff Erskine B. Bowles and Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin -- both wealthy Wall Street financiers -- sat huddled in Lott's office, as Lott and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) tried to cut a final deal on a balanced budget agreement that included a cut to the capital gains tax rate.
"There they were, two Democrats who had been very successful in business, squaring off with two Republicans who didn't have two nickels to rub together," Hoppe recalled.
They struck a deal: Cut the capital gains rate and create a major federal program to offer health insurance to children of the working poor.
After the 2000 election, which left the Senate deadlocked at 50 seats apiece, Lott again struck a deal that angered many in his party. Although Republicans technically had control of the Senate with the vote of newly elected Vice President Cheney, Lott and Daschle agreed to evenly divide the committees. Moreover, they agreed, if one party won a majority midstream, either through a party switch, a resignation or a death, the other party would agree to relinquish control without a fight.
Lott reasoned that the deadlocked Senate could waste the first months of George W. Bush's fledgling presidency in a process fight, or he could relent early and get to work.
But such deals are getting harder to come by.
On June 7, as Lott absorbed increasingly virulent attacks from conservatives for his support of a bipartisan immigration overhaul, he took to the Senate floor for another appeal.
"This is the time where we are going to see whether we are a Senate anymore," he intoned. "Are we men or mice? Are we going to slither away from this issue and hope for some epiphany to happen? No. Let's legislate. Let's vote."
Three weeks later, the immigration bill fell to a Republican filibuster, and Congress slithered away from the issue.
more...
ashrock11
09-13 08:15 PM
Hi,
My I-485 case was approved on 7/23, got approval letter on 7/30.
In August I got the Code 3 Biometrics letter and now I got it for Code 2. Two Biometrics appointment within a month!
Does this usually happen? No CPO e-mails or card yet!
Thanks
My I-485 case was approved on 7/23, got approval letter on 7/30.
In August I got the Code 3 Biometrics letter and now I got it for Code 2. Two Biometrics appointment within a month!
Does this usually happen? No CPO e-mails or card yet!
Thanks
hot animated smiley face
sukhwinderd
12-10 10:23 AM
lawmakers are so anxious to legalize illegals. they will bring seperate bill to legalize parents.
more...
house smiley face clip art animated.
REEF�
05-29 01:02 PM
So you signed up to post a stamp :huh:. Welcome to the forums and the colors look great :lol:.
tattoo 70pcs/lot Cute Smiley Face
mamsie1
07-14 12:28 PM
I have an H1B approval from USCIS, and I am trying to go to Canada for the initial visa stamping. But then i have a problem. I initially entered the country as a visitor, and married a citizen, but only after my I-94 had expired for about a week. (My petition is still pending. The company I am working for could not wait for my greencard, since its already been years since I started that process, so they went ahead and applied for the H1B visa for me). I heard that it is a problem to do the visa stamping in Canada if you have been out of status before. Is it advisable to go to Canada for the visa stamping?
:confused:
:confused:
more...
pictures hot cute pics of smiley faces.
vips12
06-11 02:49 PM
Hi
I am currently working on my H1 for comapany A. They have filed my Labor on Dec-06 in EB-3. I have an approved I-140 and I-485 is currently pending.
I have got an offer from company B. They want me to switch on EAD and they said they will also file my H1 and i can then move back on H1.
My question is if i switch the company on EAD, can i switch back to H1B in new (Company C) or same company (Company B) and if so can i then swtich to EB-2 by filing new Labor and 140 using the same priority date.
I am currently working on my H1 for comapany A. They have filed my Labor on Dec-06 in EB-3. I have an approved I-140 and I-485 is currently pending.
I have got an offer from company B. They want me to switch on EAD and they said they will also file my H1 and i can then move back on H1.
My question is if i switch the company on EAD, can i switch back to H1B in new (Company C) or same company (Company B) and if so can i then swtich to EB-2 by filing new Labor and 140 using the same priority date.
dresses animated smiley faces. clip
pappu
04-13 02:32 PM
I have some experience and my wife has some.(We already have got our gc but I am glad to help)
drak70
Thanks
Pls send a PM or email to pdakwala
drak70
Thanks
Pls send a PM or email to pdakwala
more...
makeup animated smiley face cartoon.
sukisharma
07-21 10:46 AM
There is a mistake in my 485 cover letter. The letter states that I am EB3 but actually I am EB2.
Will this cause any problem? Will USCIS deny my case? Please note we included I-140 approval form in the file.
Many thanks.
Will this cause any problem? Will USCIS deny my case? Please note we included I-140 approval form in the file.
Many thanks.
girlfriend funny smiley face cartoon.
Suva
07-20 11:25 AM
Discussion related to this going on in another thread.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4334
Please search the forum before opening a new thread.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4334
Please search the forum before opening a new thread.
hairstyles cute pics of smiley faces. PARADISE Girl Smiley faces
skv
06-22 11:06 AM
Good Morning Folks,
How about this ? Lets say your consulting firm is ready to file your I-485 upon lots of restriction such as two year agreement and to spend around 10 gran.
While the big firm who has filed the PERM and waiting for the approval. In this case, can we do both the cases to see which is better upon the current situation.
This will help few of our folks and your thoughts are always appreciated.
Thanks a lot guys.
How about this ? Lets say your consulting firm is ready to file your I-485 upon lots of restriction such as two year agreement and to spend around 10 gran.
While the big firm who has filed the PERM and waiting for the approval. In this case, can we do both the cases to see which is better upon the current situation.
This will help few of our folks and your thoughts are always appreciated.
Thanks a lot guys.
junior1982
03-01 07:38 PM
Hi,
My H1B Visa expires in Aug 2009 (it was after first extension, till date i have already consumed 3 years 6 months in US). I have following questions,
1. After filing the extension next month, Can I leave to India immediately after getting the receiept (before approval). I might plan to come back to US after a year or so! I will be working at offshore for the same company.
2. If i leave a gap of 365 days, would i regain full 6 years after my re-entry in USA with the existing Visa itself?
I am very sorry if this is a repeated question, i did spend ample time investigating this query and then decided to post this in a thread.
Thanks,
Vibav
My H1B Visa expires in Aug 2009 (it was after first extension, till date i have already consumed 3 years 6 months in US). I have following questions,
1. After filing the extension next month, Can I leave to India immediately after getting the receiept (before approval). I might plan to come back to US after a year or so! I will be working at offshore for the same company.
2. If i leave a gap of 365 days, would i regain full 6 years after my re-entry in USA with the existing Visa itself?
I am very sorry if this is a repeated question, i did spend ample time investigating this query and then decided to post this in a thread.
Thanks,
Vibav
zwswim
01-26 01:03 PM
I am a chinese. My company would like to support my green card applicaion this year. I also plan to be married this year or early next year. My wife is a F1 student from china.
As I know that my wife can be a dependent in my green card application. If I start the green card application process from next month, is it ok that I add a wife as my green card application dependent if we get married at around Nov 2011.
How to handle the GC application and marriage in a good way? I means any schedule or trick I need pay attention on.
Thanks
As I know that my wife can be a dependent in my green card application. If I start the green card application process from next month, is it ok that I add a wife as my green card application dependent if we get married at around Nov 2011.
How to handle the GC application and marriage in a good way? I means any schedule or trick I need pay attention on.
Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment