number30
03-16 04:53 PM
I believe working on 1099 is allowed when you have the full time work on H1B going.
There are different types of 1099. 1099-Misc is not allowed. 1099-Int , 1099-G are the examples of allowed 1099s
There are different types of 1099. 1099-Misc is not allowed. 1099-Int , 1099-G are the examples of allowed 1099s
wallpaper hair hairstyles dark londe
IVFOREVER
09-01 12:52 PM
I suggest you instead put the same effort some where else to earn the amount you lost to USCIS.
casinoroyale
07-01 09:34 AM
B1 is purely-non-immigrant-intent visa while H1 is dual-intent. Given this, I do not see any harm entering on B1 while you have a valid I-797 presumably starting Oct 1st? So, after returning you can appear for H1 visa stamp and later enter using H1.
This is my personal opinion, please take attorney's advise.
This is my personal opinion, please take attorney's advise.
2011 Blonde hair with pink dip dye.
Chiwere
10-29 01:17 PM
Eb3
more...
maine_gc
08-20 12:59 PM
Is KY State Chapter active?
I live in Lexington, KY. Some one let me know the KY State Chapter details so that i can talk to the members
I live in Lexington, KY. Some one let me know the KY State Chapter details so that i can talk to the members
GCwaitforever
07-03 07:32 AM
Please write to the ombudsman. See the report thread for e-mail.
more...
sunnysunny
10-01 01:24 PM
Gurus,
I really need advise. I am with Company A on H1, they filed my H1 extension 2 months ago (did not get approval yet) and they filed my I-140/485/EAD/AP(180 will be finishing after 90 days) and now I got following RFE on I-140. My lawyer has not replied yet.
Meanwhile the client where I am working has offered me full time position. Can I join this client on H1 and ask my current employer to continue my GC process and send AC21 on H1 after 180 days?
"The Master of Science Degree does not appear to be equivalent to U.S. Master Degree. Do NOT send an additional "education evaluations" that are mere advisory opinion. Submit preponderance of evidence that the beneficiary's bachelor and the master degree is U.S. equivalent based on educational records only"
Thanks
Sunny
I really need advise. I am with Company A on H1, they filed my H1 extension 2 months ago (did not get approval yet) and they filed my I-140/485/EAD/AP(180 will be finishing after 90 days) and now I got following RFE on I-140. My lawyer has not replied yet.
Meanwhile the client where I am working has offered me full time position. Can I join this client on H1 and ask my current employer to continue my GC process and send AC21 on H1 after 180 days?
"The Master of Science Degree does not appear to be equivalent to U.S. Master Degree. Do NOT send an additional "education evaluations" that are mere advisory opinion. Submit preponderance of evidence that the beneficiary's bachelor and the master degree is U.S. equivalent based on educational records only"
Thanks
Sunny
2010 dye hair lighter, going londe
zymorian
05-12 01:14 AM
err, any advice from anyone?? :rolleyes:
more...
mayurcreation
08-27 02:06 PM
Dear Attorney,
My I140 got approve from A company when I was working in company B.( I applied for I140 from company A and left the company after 5 months due to some reason). My approved I140 is still valid as I went to USCIS website and check the case status using EAC number.
This is my 5yr on H1 visa.
My question is:
- Can I transfer my H1 to company C using A company I140 EAC number and get 3 yrs of extention? ( I only have EAC number of approved I140. A company have refused to give me copy of approved I140 as I left the company.).
Thanks!
My I140 got approve from A company when I was working in company B.( I applied for I140 from company A and left the company after 5 months due to some reason). My approved I140 is still valid as I went to USCIS website and check the case status using EAC number.
This is my 5yr on H1 visa.
My question is:
- Can I transfer my H1 to company C using A company I140 EAC number and get 3 yrs of extention? ( I only have EAC number of approved I140. A company have refused to give me copy of approved I140 as I left the company.).
Thanks!
hair dark hair with red tips. hot
sweet_jungle
08-26 04:41 PM
Just saw this on .
http://www..com/discuss/485eb/16934615/
EB3 India is U for both August and Sep. How is USCIS still processing and approving GCs? Have they still not recovered from the madness of approving GCs?
Who knows, some July 2 Texas filers might get GCs in Sep.
http://www..com/discuss/485eb/16934615/
EB3 India is U for both August and Sep. How is USCIS still processing and approving GCs? Have they still not recovered from the madness of approving GCs?
Who knows, some July 2 Texas filers might get GCs in Sep.
more...
bos_guy
08-05 11:22 AM
I need some help with my immigration issues. I was wondering if anyone knew of a good lawyer that would be able to assist me? My issue is regarding H1B/ F1. As always any help is greatly appreciated.
hot Full of Win londe hair dye
h1vegas
07-28 05:41 PM
Pls help me answer this question
I am one of the July filers, have EAD and applied for I485 EB3, Dec 2003 India. My H-1 And GC are both based on the job title- Systems Programmer/ Network Admin. I wanted to apply for a position in the university - Lab Director- Electrical & Computer Engineering. My question is :
1) Since not all the job responsibilities will be same in the new job (if i get it). but some ofthe requirements will be the same.
[like setting up the network, little programming devices etc.]
2) Can I apply for EB-2 with the university and later port my date- Eb3 to EB2
Pls let me know at your earliest convenience
Thanks
I am one of the July filers, have EAD and applied for I485 EB3, Dec 2003 India. My H-1 And GC are both based on the job title- Systems Programmer/ Network Admin. I wanted to apply for a position in the university - Lab Director- Electrical & Computer Engineering. My question is :
1) Since not all the job responsibilities will be same in the new job (if i get it). but some ofthe requirements will be the same.
[like setting up the network, little programming devices etc.]
2) Can I apply for EB-2 with the university and later port my date- Eb3 to EB2
Pls let me know at your earliest convenience
Thanks
more...
house hair and londe hair dye.
priya777
10-17 12:53 PM
AS my PD is current july2003 EB2 and i have my AP documents.. can i travel to india for 1 month ??? as in case my I-485 is approved when i am in india what will happen to my status?
what all documents do i need to take when i go to india? Please help me
what all documents do i need to take when i go to india? Please help me
tattoo Blonde hair becomes dull
kelvincoper
01-20 05:50 AM
Hello,
This is my final effect:proud:. I was trying to make something unique, but I dont know how far i m successful to make jelly fish. I was trying to play with the tail of jelly Fish, but time constraint.
Anyhow here is the preview
http://www.funduflash.com/FXpression09_03.html
[source]
cheers
This is my final effect:proud:. I was trying to make something unique, but I dont know how far i m successful to make jelly fish. I was trying to play with the tail of jelly Fish, but time constraint.
Anyhow here is the preview
http://www.funduflash.com/FXpression09_03.html
[source]
cheers
more...
pictures house got this lack hair dyed
Blog Feeds
03-12 08:40 PM
As Rodney King famously remarked, "Why can't we all get along?" As Democrats and Republicans in Congress have spent the past year beating each other up regarding the health care bill, do we want the same thing to happen with immigration this year? At the moment, President Obama cannot even find two Republican senators out of 40 to support Comprehensive Immigration Reform. And anyone who thinks that all Democrats are united in support of CIR must be drinking the Kool-Aid. But does this mean that immigration reform is DOA in 2010? Not necessarily. There are individual pieces of immigration legislation...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/03/reform-the-legal-immigration-system.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/03/reform-the-legal-immigration-system.html)
dresses red hair blonde hair dyed
Blog Feeds
12-18 09:40 AM
I heard a fascinating interview of Kati Marton by Bob Edwards this weekend and am going to buy her new book Enemies of the People. The Hungarian-born Ms. Marton is a former ABC News reporter and NPR international correspondent. Journalism is in her blood. Her parents were reporters in Hungary for UPI and the AP and they risked their lives trying to report the truth in that country in the years leading up to the 1956 revolution. She writes about her parents' arrests by the secret police and the experience of living her first eight years in Hungary in her...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/12/immigrant-of-the-day-kati-martin---journalist.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/12/immigrant-of-the-day-kati-martin---journalist.html)
more...
makeup ideas Honey Blonde Hair
Acm928
01-22 11:25 PM
Hi, I was wondering how long it is going to take me to get my citizenship. I received my permanent residency when I was 17. I was told I could have gotten my citizenship then but since I married a military personnel I wasn't sure if I was still eligible. Can I get my citizenship now because I received my "green card" under age or would I still have to wait 3 years being married to a U.S Citizen? Can I get my citizenship faster being married to a military personnel?
girlfriend londe hair dye shades. dark
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
hairstyles I have naturally londe hair,
Blog Feeds
05-20 01:30 PM
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFFNHKi9We9phJ31GrDiIWLEIQ9oNLCR79aSBZV4ziWtez9bEKANerYtUb7GsXi0X4TLs0g_v9XKkK2MNMe16PsCanxb9yAluTlnBfQxx565aXHc_H_A1wm7azQq7P9amlunb_G2C6kdRb/s200/abacus.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFFNHKi9We9phJ31GrDiIWLEIQ9oNLCR79aSBZV4ziWtez9bEKANerYtUb7GsXi0X4TLs0g_v9XKkK2MNMe16PsCanxb9yAluTlnBfQxx565aXHc_H_A1wm7azQq7P9amlunb_G2C6kdRb/s1600/abacus.jpg)
As of May 14, 2010, USCIS had received 19,000 cases against the regular H-1B cap and 8,100 cases against the Master's degree cap.
USCIS provides regular updates on the processing of FY2011 H-1B petitions. The updates can be found on the USCIS� website here (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=4b7cdd1d5fd37210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=73566811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60a RCRD).
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-6989381165597342591?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/05/h-1b-cap-count-for-fy-2011-updated.html)
As of May 14, 2010, USCIS had received 19,000 cases against the regular H-1B cap and 8,100 cases against the Master's degree cap.
USCIS provides regular updates on the processing of FY2011 H-1B petitions. The updates can be found on the USCIS� website here (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=4b7cdd1d5fd37210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=73566811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60a RCRD).
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-6989381165597342591?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/05/h-1b-cap-count-for-fy-2011-updated.html)
jsk1982
08-24 01:51 AM
I have an I-485 that will be current soon, but I am not employed. If they approve it, will that be considered a mistake and make it invalid? Should I withdraw it? Will a letter explaining the situation be sufficient? I have another application as a dependent, just takes longer.
cr125rider
04-19 08:33 PM
Try to incorporate some kirupa.com-ie stuff. Like the orange or something of that sort. I like the "priceless" idea though.
OFF TOPIC: Like the MX and fox avatar.
OFF TOPIC: Like the MX and fox avatar.
No comments:
Post a Comment