amnak
05-09 08:35 AM
hi
i have been offered a job at my current research centre where i worked as a student. I want to go back to my home country. The job can be done online and does not require physical presence in the USA. Will i still need an OPT? or can they employ me as an international worker? if they wmploy me as an international consultant then what are the ramifications for teh company? wht is the legal procedure? will they have to pay taxes more etc?
Please help
i have been offered a job at my current research centre where i worked as a student. I want to go back to my home country. The job can be done online and does not require physical presence in the USA. Will i still need an OPT? or can they employ me as an international worker? if they wmploy me as an international consultant then what are the ramifications for teh company? wht is the legal procedure? will they have to pay taxes more etc?
Please help
wallpaper Penelope Cruz could soon be
bijualex29
06-20 06:48 PM
If doctors says to get two MMR or Varicella shots in 1 months aparts, do we need to wait for one month to get Medical reports? Can some one explain me ?
roseball
04-17 05:24 PM
Holding an I-20 doesnt mean anything if you dont enroll for the required minimum credit hrs...You have to enroll....
2011 Penelope Cruz and Javier
sravi9
04-03 01:44 PM
My Husband's I 140 got approved and his lawyer included my name as well in the I 140 application.
Can some one plss help me by letting me know if I can change to F1 for my further studies inspite of my name being included in the I 140 application
Plss let me know at the earliest possible as I need to apply for change of status before may....!!!!!
Can some one plss help me by letting me know if I can change to F1 for my further studies inspite of my name being included in the I 140 application
Plss let me know at the earliest possible as I need to apply for change of status before may....!!!!!
more...
samin
03-13 05:54 PM
My sister's H1B petition was approved on 2008 and she was unable to travel US for the past 1.5 year.
She is working in a MNC company in India. Now, she came to US on her B1 visa 1.5 month back. Meanwhile, she got an offer from a client in US and she want takeover the new job on her approved H1.
So, can you please let me know whether the employer (whoever filed my sister's h1) can file the H1B amenment while she in US with B1 visa and having H1B approved petition? If so, how many days she has to wait to get the approved amenment to start her work at client place? The employer is going to do the premium payment so that can we assume the amenment will be approved for sure?.
The LCA is really required for H1amenment? Please advice. This is really urgent.
Thanks in advance.
She is working in a MNC company in India. Now, she came to US on her B1 visa 1.5 month back. Meanwhile, she got an offer from a client in US and she want takeover the new job on her approved H1.
So, can you please let me know whether the employer (whoever filed my sister's h1) can file the H1B amenment while she in US with B1 visa and having H1B approved petition? If so, how many days she has to wait to get the approved amenment to start her work at client place? The employer is going to do the premium payment so that can we assume the amenment will be approved for sure?.
The LCA is really required for H1amenment? Please advice. This is really urgent.
Thanks in advance.
shana04
01-30 07:25 AM
I meant on IV page......
I don't see them either
I don't see them either
more...
Blog Feeds
02-05 06:40 PM
Immigration policies at today's USCIS may change in a flash. They can be announced and then, without forewarning or explanation, withdrawn in the milliseconds it takes for the agency's webmaster at www.uscis.gov to push the upload and delete buttons. At times they are as reliable and ephemeral as the inducements of a carnival barker. Take for example a January 19, 2010 policy memo, "Signatures on Applications and Petitions Filed with USCIS" (penned by USCIS Acting Deputy Director, Lauren Kielsmeier). The memo appeared evanescently and then, as Ron Ziegler, Richard Nixon's former press secretary in the Watergate era, might have said,...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/02/signature.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/02/signature.html)
2010 I hear wedding bells
SKDevelopment
09-09 02:07 PM
I am a PHP programmer available for hire (http://www.skdevelopment.com/) .
I've more than 6 years of work experience. Most projects I developed were in Visual FoxPro, C++, PHP.
Please see my resume (http://www.skdevelopment.com/resume.php) for details.
I have designed 2 web sites in PHP/MySQL. I am looking for an opportunity to create a good portfolio in web programming. I am mostly interested in minor projects in PHP/MySQL. Though I could do some bigger ones too (only as part-time job presently).
--
Best Regards,
Sergey Korolev.
I've more than 6 years of work experience. Most projects I developed were in Visual FoxPro, C++, PHP.
Please see my resume (http://www.skdevelopment.com/resume.php) for details.
I have designed 2 web sites in PHP/MySQL. I am looking for an opportunity to create a good portfolio in web programming. I am mostly interested in minor projects in PHP/MySQL. Though I could do some bigger ones too (only as part-time job presently).
--
Best Regards,
Sergey Korolev.
more...
jamesingham
08-16 03:14 PM
Does anyone have any information about the number of applications that were recieved by USCIS till now ?
I didnt apply for 485 Bcoz, I am not married. So lil curious when my next chance will come
I didnt apply for 485 Bcoz, I am not married. So lil curious when my next chance will come
hair javier bardem penelope cruz.
pappu
03-31 11:03 AM
/\/\/
more...
Blog Feeds
06-09 02:10 PM
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVTl9OL-MaymNZZbmWlvECAo8-yMZ8kKUxMiuASNe7O8c_48QS6ZME_wvnB-S4w8a6vAJQ6yeE1Nqw1GNi-AQnEAeliKUuf2Ox_01ly9zhtMhNX6GQoodW52NTq7WqdmsruezsQ8_qUKz7/s200/abacus.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVTl9OL-MaymNZZbmWlvECAo8-yMZ8kKUxMiuASNe7O8c_48QS6ZME_wvnB-S4w8a6vAJQ6yeE1Nqw1GNi-AQnEAeliKUuf2Ox_01ly9zhtMhNX6GQoodW52NTq7WqdmsruezsQ8_qUKz7/s1600-h/abacus.jpg)
USCIS updated the H-1B cap count for Fiscal Year 2010. It now has 45,700 cases against the regular (non-Master's) H-1B cap. For more information, see the previous blog posts here (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/04/h-1b-count-now-at-44000.html)and here (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/04/h-1b-cap-may-not-have-been-reached-yet.html)
http://immigrationvoice.org//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-5975583509495150782?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/h-1b-cap-count-update-45700-now-used.html)
USCIS updated the H-1B cap count for Fiscal Year 2010. It now has 45,700 cases against the regular (non-Master's) H-1B cap. For more information, see the previous blog posts here (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/04/h-1b-count-now-at-44000.html)and here (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/04/h-1b-cap-may-not-have-been-reached-yet.html)
http://immigrationvoice.org//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-5975583509495150782?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/h-1b-cap-count-update-45700-now-used.html)
hot Penelope Cruz Vanity Fair
zephyrus
12-01 05:19 PM
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/12/reports_rep_rey.html
Any thoughts/analysis on what this means to our situation?
-zeph
Any thoughts/analysis on what this means to our situation?
-zeph
more...
house Penelope Cruz and Javier
vallabhu
08-06 08:37 PM
Hi Gurus,
My I140 application is denied and pending appeal and I am in the proces of applying for new I140, in Part 4 section 6 is it suggested to give deatils of old I140 and if checked yes what all documents should be attached.
My I140 application is denied and pending appeal and I am in the proces of applying for new I140, in Part 4 section 6 is it suggested to give deatils of old I140 and if checked yes what all documents should be attached.
tattoo Penelope Cruz Javier Bardem
snathan
02-05 03:20 PM
Hello,
My I-140 was approved in August 2009 and my PD is Jan-2004 (EB3). I want to know when i can apply for I-485, should i have to wait till my PD becomes Current or is there any other way by which i can file the I-485. Please shed some light on this topic and thanks for your time and effort.
Thanks ! ! :confused: :rolleyes:
You need to wait for your PD become current...may be in 2019.
good luck.
My I-140 was approved in August 2009 and my PD is Jan-2004 (EB3). I want to know when i can apply for I-485, should i have to wait till my PD becomes Current or is there any other way by which i can file the I-485. Please shed some light on this topic and thanks for your time and effort.
Thanks ! ! :confused: :rolleyes:
You need to wait for your PD become current...may be in 2019.
good luck.
more...
pictures Penelope Cruz amp; Javier Bardem
ponnam
12-09 02:48 PM
Can anyone help with your reply please....
dresses Penelope Cruz and Javier
sands_14
06-19 07:02 AM
Is H1 dual intent visa then?
If yes, can a person get h1b stamping even if I485 filed?
If yes, can a person get h1b stamping even if I485 filed?
more...
makeup girlfriend Penelope Cruz is a
Macaca
06-22 06:55 AM
Senate Passes Energy Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062101026.html?hpid=topnews) Democrats Prevail; Mileage Standard Would Be Raised By Sholnn Freeman (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/sholnn+freeman/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, June 22, 2007
The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters.
After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.
The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.
Democratic leaders said they hoped the legislation will be a rallying point for voters concerned about national security, climate change and near-record gasoline prices.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels and for the first time in decades significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader.
Final passage of the bill capped an otherwise rancorous week in which senators grappled over energy policy. Early yesterday, Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction after a $32 billion package of energy tax cuts was blocked on a procedural vote. But late in the day, a bipartisan group of senators came together to break an impasse on vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would require cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicle to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Earlier in the week, the Senate rejected additions to the bill that would have pumped billions of federal dollars into efforts to ramp up production of a coal-based fuel for cars and trucks, which proponents had called an important alternative to petroleum. Additionally, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) failed to win approval for a proposal to allow exploration for natural gas off the Virginia coast, and Republicans blocked an effort to require that more of the nation's electricity come for renewable sources.
The passage of fuel-efficiency measure was viewed as a major triumph for the Democrats, particularly the last-minute dealmaking that enabled passage of the comprehensive change to mileage standards.
The politics of fuel economy had gone virtually unchanged since Congress passed the first nationwide standards -- known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE -- in 1975. The last time the full Senate tried to boost fuel-economy standards was in 2002, and the effort was defeated handily.
The auto industry successfully argued that large increases in efficiency standards would force them to build smaller vehicles -- the kind American consumers won't buy. In recent years, however, low mileage standards left U.S. automakers with little market defense against higher-mileage Japanese cars, particularly at times when gas prices soar. As consumers have moved gradually from SUVs and pickup trucks to smaller vehicles, Detroit's Big Three automakers have gone through a painful restructuring period.
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
The fuel-efficiency language in the Senate energy package originally had coupled a 35 mile-per-gallon standard with a requirement of 4 percent annual increases for the decade after 2020. A group led by the two Michigan senators -- Democrats Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow -- and Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had sought instead to gain support for an amendment that would impose less-stringent standards while satisfying growing demands for change in the fuel-efficiency laws.
In the compromise-- shepherded principally by Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) -- lawmakers dropped a provision that would have mandated additional 4 percent annual increases in fuel efficiency between 2021 and 2030. They also softened a provision that would have required all automakers to build substantially more vehicles that can run on ethanol and other biofuels.
After the fuel-economy vote, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), another architect of the compromise, said the nation's desire to be less dependent on foreign oil would be a "hopeless journey" without more efficient cars and trucks.
"Now, in our vehicles, we have better cup-holders, we have keyless entry, we have better music systems, we have heated seats," Dorgan said. "It is time that we expect more automobile efficiency."
Senators who had previously been friendly to the auto industry said they were changing their position after growing weary of the industry's position. "I listened and I listened, year after year," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said on the Senate floor. "And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change."
In the end, Senate aides said, Levin's group did not have the votes.
Democratic leaders said the bipartisan backing of the compromise worked out in the Senate would help build support in the House when that chamber House begins debate on its energy package. Already, Rep. John D. Dingell, (D-Mich.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have battled over fuel economy.
In another Senate battle yesterday, Democrats lost a fight against oil companies when Republicans blocked a $32 billion tax package that would have poured money into alternative fuel projects by raising taxes on oil and gas companies.
President Bush, meanwhile, visited the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens, Ala., where he touted nuclear power as a clean, dependable and safe source of electricity and promised to streamline the federal regulatory process to ease the way for the construction of new plants.
"Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases," Bush said. "If you're interested in cleaning up the air you ought to be for nuclear power."
Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher in Athens, Ala., contributed to this report.
The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters.
After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.
The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.
Democratic leaders said they hoped the legislation will be a rallying point for voters concerned about national security, climate change and near-record gasoline prices.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels and for the first time in decades significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader.
Final passage of the bill capped an otherwise rancorous week in which senators grappled over energy policy. Early yesterday, Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction after a $32 billion package of energy tax cuts was blocked on a procedural vote. But late in the day, a bipartisan group of senators came together to break an impasse on vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would require cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicle to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Earlier in the week, the Senate rejected additions to the bill that would have pumped billions of federal dollars into efforts to ramp up production of a coal-based fuel for cars and trucks, which proponents had called an important alternative to petroleum. Additionally, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) failed to win approval for a proposal to allow exploration for natural gas off the Virginia coast, and Republicans blocked an effort to require that more of the nation's electricity come for renewable sources.
The passage of fuel-efficiency measure was viewed as a major triumph for the Democrats, particularly the last-minute dealmaking that enabled passage of the comprehensive change to mileage standards.
The politics of fuel economy had gone virtually unchanged since Congress passed the first nationwide standards -- known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE -- in 1975. The last time the full Senate tried to boost fuel-economy standards was in 2002, and the effort was defeated handily.
The auto industry successfully argued that large increases in efficiency standards would force them to build smaller vehicles -- the kind American consumers won't buy. In recent years, however, low mileage standards left U.S. automakers with little market defense against higher-mileage Japanese cars, particularly at times when gas prices soar. As consumers have moved gradually from SUVs and pickup trucks to smaller vehicles, Detroit's Big Three automakers have gone through a painful restructuring period.
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
The fuel-efficiency language in the Senate energy package originally had coupled a 35 mile-per-gallon standard with a requirement of 4 percent annual increases for the decade after 2020. A group led by the two Michigan senators -- Democrats Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow -- and Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had sought instead to gain support for an amendment that would impose less-stringent standards while satisfying growing demands for change in the fuel-efficiency laws.
In the compromise-- shepherded principally by Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) -- lawmakers dropped a provision that would have mandated additional 4 percent annual increases in fuel efficiency between 2021 and 2030. They also softened a provision that would have required all automakers to build substantially more vehicles that can run on ethanol and other biofuels.
After the fuel-economy vote, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), another architect of the compromise, said the nation's desire to be less dependent on foreign oil would be a "hopeless journey" without more efficient cars and trucks.
"Now, in our vehicles, we have better cup-holders, we have keyless entry, we have better music systems, we have heated seats," Dorgan said. "It is time that we expect more automobile efficiency."
Senators who had previously been friendly to the auto industry said they were changing their position after growing weary of the industry's position. "I listened and I listened, year after year," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said on the Senate floor. "And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change."
In the end, Senate aides said, Levin's group did not have the votes.
Democratic leaders said the bipartisan backing of the compromise worked out in the Senate would help build support in the House when that chamber House begins debate on its energy package. Already, Rep. John D. Dingell, (D-Mich.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have battled over fuel economy.
In another Senate battle yesterday, Democrats lost a fight against oil companies when Republicans blocked a $32 billion tax package that would have poured money into alternative fuel projects by raising taxes on oil and gas companies.
President Bush, meanwhile, visited the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens, Ala., where he touted nuclear power as a clean, dependable and safe source of electricity and promised to streamline the federal regulatory process to ease the way for the construction of new plants.
"Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases," Bush said. "If you're interested in cleaning up the air you ought to be for nuclear power."
Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher in Athens, Ala., contributed to this report.
girlfriend javier bardem y penelope cruz
Steve Mitchell
November 20th, 2004, 07:27 AM
Fuji has released some sample images for the S3 DSLR. You can check out the sample pix here (http://home.fujifilm.com/products/digital/lineup/s3pro/sample.html).
hairstyles Hollywood actress Penelope
kevincuiyan
05-29 09:12 AM
Hi all,
I filled I-485 in 2007. Now I am waiting on the status adjustment and I have a quick question about job changes.
A starting-up company with only 2 employees has got a contract outside U.S.. They need to hire somebody to work for them outside U.S. for 1 year maybe longer. I happen to be their best candidate. My question is whether a small company like this one is able to sponsor me to get my GC. Does USCIS have minimum requirements for a company which can sponsor employees' GC application? For instance, a company must have at least 30 employees or over $3 million revenue. I really want this opportunity. But I don't want to ruin my GC application.
I greatly appreciate your time and your answers.
Thanks.
Kevin
I filled I-485 in 2007. Now I am waiting on the status adjustment and I have a quick question about job changes.
A starting-up company with only 2 employees has got a contract outside U.S.. They need to hire somebody to work for them outside U.S. for 1 year maybe longer. I happen to be their best candidate. My question is whether a small company like this one is able to sponsor me to get my GC. Does USCIS have minimum requirements for a company which can sponsor employees' GC application? For instance, a company must have at least 30 employees or over $3 million revenue. I really want this opportunity. But I don't want to ruin my GC application.
I greatly appreciate your time and your answers.
Thanks.
Kevin
freddyCR
July 26th, 2005, 12:10 PM
I don't understand. Isn't this the critique forum? I'm asking for critique. What's non-topical? :(
achu
06-05 03:18 PM
Hi,
I am confused with AP expiration date.
The printed exiration date is :July 29, 2009
But my latest paroled stamp on AP it is : Dec 05, 2009.
Which date should i follow to renew my AP?
thanks
achu
I am confused with AP expiration date.
The printed exiration date is :July 29, 2009
But my latest paroled stamp on AP it is : Dec 05, 2009.
Which date should i follow to renew my AP?
thanks
achu
0 comments:
Post a Comment