gc28262
01-22 03:54 PM
Law firm presenting the case does make a difference in H1B applications.
wallpaper Emo Hairstyles
Macaca
10-30 08:54 PM
Honey, They Shrunk the Congress (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/opinion/30tues4.html) By ADAM COHEN | New York Times, October 30, 2007
President Bush�s nominee for attorney general, Michael Mukasey, was asked an important question about Congress�s power at his confirmation hearing. If witnesses claim executive privilege and refuse to respond to Congressional subpoenas in the United States attorneys scandal � as Karl Rove and Harriet Miers have done � and Congress holds them in contempt, would his Justice Department refer the matter to a grand jury for criminal prosecution, as federal law requires?
Mr. Mukasey suggested the answer would be no. That was hardly his only slap-down of Congress. He made the startling claim that a president can defy laws if he or she is acting within the authority �to defend the country.� That is a mighty large exception to the rule that Congress�s laws are supreme.
The founders wanted the �people�s branch� to be strong, but the Bush administration has usurped a frightening number of Congress�s powers � with very little resistance. The question is whether members of Congress of both parties will do anything about it.
Congress is often described as one of three coequal branches, but that is not entirely true. As Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor, observed in �America�s Constitution: a Biography,� Article I actually makes Congress �first among equals, with wide power to structure the second-mentioned executive and third-mentioned judicial branches.�
Article I, which describes Congress�s powers, is the Constitution�s first, longest and most generously worded article. It gives Congress a wide array of specific powers, but also broad authority to pass laws that bring to life �all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.�
It would be hard to recognize that powerful Congress today. In part, that is because Congress has been unwilling or unable to enact laws on the most important issues facing the nation � Iraq, immigration reform, health care.
Just as troubling, though, is how it has allowed its institutional power to erode. President Bush has regularly issued signing statements � including on critical issues like the ban on torture � that assert his right to ignore new laws at the same time as he signs them. These signing statements are not just talk. A report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office states that in nearly one-third of the cases it looked at, after President Bush issued a signing statement objecting to a provision of a new law, his administration did not implement it as written.
The Senate has routinely confirmed judicial nominees who make no secret of their belief that the president�s power should be sweeping, and Congress�s sharply cut back.
The Senate confirmed Jeffrey Sutton to a federal appeals court judgeship even though Patrick Leahy, now the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, observed that as a lawyer Mr. Sutton �aggressively sought out cases to limit the power of Congress to enact laws protecting individual rights.� It confirmed Janice Rogers Brown to the powerful United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit even though she had suggested that much of the legislation passed during the New Deal � including the Social Security Act � was unconstitutional.
There are things Congress can do. It can start by speaking out about the importance of Congressional power the way the administration has talked about deferring to the commander in chief. Congress should pass laws that support its own power � like a bipartisan one that Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, has introduced to nullify the impact of signing statements.
The Senate should refuse to confirm nominees who do not take Congressional power seriously. And Congress should make clear that if the executive branch will not enforce its subpoenas, it will use its own �inherent contempt� powers to do so.
Right now, standing up for Congress may appeal more to Democrats than Republicans. The issue of reining in presidential power is beginning to gain traction among conservatives, however, as they contemplate the possibility of a Democrat � particularly Hillary Clinton � as president.
Defending Congressional authority should not be a partisan issue. The founders wanted a strong Congress because they understood the importance of ensuring that the most democratic branch have a strong say in how the nation is run.
President Bush�s nominee for attorney general, Michael Mukasey, was asked an important question about Congress�s power at his confirmation hearing. If witnesses claim executive privilege and refuse to respond to Congressional subpoenas in the United States attorneys scandal � as Karl Rove and Harriet Miers have done � and Congress holds them in contempt, would his Justice Department refer the matter to a grand jury for criminal prosecution, as federal law requires?
Mr. Mukasey suggested the answer would be no. That was hardly his only slap-down of Congress. He made the startling claim that a president can defy laws if he or she is acting within the authority �to defend the country.� That is a mighty large exception to the rule that Congress�s laws are supreme.
The founders wanted the �people�s branch� to be strong, but the Bush administration has usurped a frightening number of Congress�s powers � with very little resistance. The question is whether members of Congress of both parties will do anything about it.
Congress is often described as one of three coequal branches, but that is not entirely true. As Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor, observed in �America�s Constitution: a Biography,� Article I actually makes Congress �first among equals, with wide power to structure the second-mentioned executive and third-mentioned judicial branches.�
Article I, which describes Congress�s powers, is the Constitution�s first, longest and most generously worded article. It gives Congress a wide array of specific powers, but also broad authority to pass laws that bring to life �all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.�
It would be hard to recognize that powerful Congress today. In part, that is because Congress has been unwilling or unable to enact laws on the most important issues facing the nation � Iraq, immigration reform, health care.
Just as troubling, though, is how it has allowed its institutional power to erode. President Bush has regularly issued signing statements � including on critical issues like the ban on torture � that assert his right to ignore new laws at the same time as he signs them. These signing statements are not just talk. A report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office states that in nearly one-third of the cases it looked at, after President Bush issued a signing statement objecting to a provision of a new law, his administration did not implement it as written.
The Senate has routinely confirmed judicial nominees who make no secret of their belief that the president�s power should be sweeping, and Congress�s sharply cut back.
The Senate confirmed Jeffrey Sutton to a federal appeals court judgeship even though Patrick Leahy, now the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, observed that as a lawyer Mr. Sutton �aggressively sought out cases to limit the power of Congress to enact laws protecting individual rights.� It confirmed Janice Rogers Brown to the powerful United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit even though she had suggested that much of the legislation passed during the New Deal � including the Social Security Act � was unconstitutional.
There are things Congress can do. It can start by speaking out about the importance of Congressional power the way the administration has talked about deferring to the commander in chief. Congress should pass laws that support its own power � like a bipartisan one that Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, has introduced to nullify the impact of signing statements.
The Senate should refuse to confirm nominees who do not take Congressional power seriously. And Congress should make clear that if the executive branch will not enforce its subpoenas, it will use its own �inherent contempt� powers to do so.
Right now, standing up for Congress may appeal more to Democrats than Republicans. The issue of reining in presidential power is beginning to gain traction among conservatives, however, as they contemplate the possibility of a Democrat � particularly Hillary Clinton � as president.
Defending Congressional authority should not be a partisan issue. The founders wanted a strong Congress because they understood the importance of ensuring that the most democratic branch have a strong say in how the nation is run.
Blog Feeds
08-06 08:20 PM
Supporters of stricter border enforcement must have uncorked the champagne yesterday. The Senate, in bipartisan fashion, broke a deadlock over funding and passed S. 3721, a $600 million emergency appropriation that would bring 1,500 more federal enforcers and unmanned aerial drones to the U.S. border. Last week, the requisite number of House members voted "yea" to a similar bill with a $701 million price tag. Some form of enhanced border security legislation is likely to reach the President's desk soon. The Senate's border funding tussle involved a face-off between Republicans (who wanted to pay for the bill by diverting money...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/08/my-entry.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/08/my-entry.html)
2011 emo-hairstyle-10
Macaca
09-27 11:40 AM
Following Bush Over a Cliff (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602067.html) By David S. Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 27, 2007
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
more...
joreal
08-25 04:23 PM
hi,
My company filed for H1B Extension as it is expiring in november 2009. How much time will it take to get the H1B extension approved ? Once i get H1B extension(probably for 1 year or 3 years), then should i go for H1B stamping, if so, i have to go to India for H1B Stamping. Let me know...
Thanks in advance....:)
My company filed for H1B Extension as it is expiring in november 2009. How much time will it take to get the H1B extension approved ? Once i get H1B extension(probably for 1 year or 3 years), then should i go for H1B stamping, if so, i have to go to India for H1B Stamping. Let me know...
Thanks in advance....:)
Macaca
02-17 04:54 PM
Will post something 1.
more...
kishdam
03-10 05:55 PM
I am trying to get I140 approval notice using FOIA G639 form. While filing this I have all the info but one section asks which document I am requesting and other info like location of that document.
How to know that. My I140 receipt and I1485 receipts start with SRC. Does this mean that I140 approval notice is also at Texas Service Center. With all the bi-specializaiton mess I forgot how things are now (where is I140 processed). If anyone have more thoughts please let me know.
Thanks.
How to know that. My I140 receipt and I1485 receipts start with SRC. Does this mean that I140 approval notice is also at Texas Service Center. With all the bi-specializaiton mess I forgot how things are now (where is I140 processed). If anyone have more thoughts please let me know.
Thanks.
2010 Blonde Emo Hairstyle.
STAmisha
06-30 11:46 AM
My company is filing 140 and 485 on a preapproved LC (PD of 2005)
But my original LC in P-BEC just got cleared (PD of 2003). They told that they will also use my original LC for 140 as this gives better chance than the substituted one.
1)How Can I have 2 140's ?
3)How will it effect 485?
I'm confused ..please answer
But my original LC in P-BEC just got cleared (PD of 2003). They told that they will also use my original LC for 140 as this gives better chance than the substituted one.
1)How Can I have 2 140's ?
3)How will it effect 485?
I'm confused ..please answer
more...
desi3933
06-22 03:12 PM
Gang
Here is my situation, my PD is March 05 and my 140 is pending for the past 3 months. Do you guys think if I get my 140 approved by Premium processing it would increase my chances of 485 approval this fiscal year? BTW, as its obvious from my PD I will be filing my 485 in July, God willing.
Thanks
Have any done ANY research at all before posting this?
Here is my situation, my PD is March 05 and my 140 is pending for the past 3 months. Do you guys think if I get my 140 approved by Premium processing it would increase my chances of 485 approval this fiscal year? BTW, as its obvious from my PD I will be filing my 485 in July, God willing.
Thanks
Have any done ANY research at all before posting this?
hair Emo
zofa30
09-15 04:46 PM
Hi,
I am on EB2+PERM. I got LC approved and currently filed for I-140 and 485.
As I understand unless the I-485 is pending for more than 180 days after the approval of I-140, I have to restart the whole process again with the new employer (expect that I can port PD if I want to).
Now are there any chance that if the above scenario happens, and my employer did not revoke I-140 or 485, that I can still receive my GC? Or that will be illegal? Please clarify.
Thanks
I am on EB2+PERM. I got LC approved and currently filed for I-140 and 485.
As I understand unless the I-485 is pending for more than 180 days after the approval of I-140, I have to restart the whole process again with the new employer (expect that I can port PD if I want to).
Now are there any chance that if the above scenario happens, and my employer did not revoke I-140 or 485, that I can still receive my GC? Or that will be illegal? Please clarify.
Thanks
more...
alar
11-27 11:19 PM
I am married with an American Citizen. His petition has been approved. My problem is that I cant change my status because my J1 visa was subject to the 2 years home country. I came as an Au Pair or Child Care Provider in 2007. I have been subject to that rule because the Skill List from 1997, which is not even in any field in my country El Salvador in the Skill List. That is why my application is hereby denied.
I dont know what i should do, because just I have 15 days to make a motions to reopen o pay a waiver and re-file my application all over again.
Please I need help is anyone can advice me in this. I really need it.
I dont know what i should do, because just I have 15 days to make a motions to reopen o pay a waiver and re-file my application all over again.
Please I need help is anyone can advice me in this. I really need it.
hot Short Emo Hairstyle.
Blog Feeds
03-22 12:20 PM
We still don't have the official summary of the Senate comprehensive immigration reform bill, but Senator Charles Schumer, the chair of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have written a joint op-ed piece that will appear in tomorrow morning's Washington Post that describes the major provisions of the CIR bill they will shortly introduce in the Senate. The bill will look similar to previous bills, but we now learn that it will have some new features. They include the introduction of the controversial new national identification card (a biometric social security card). The legalization program will now...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/schumer-and-graham-introduce-cir-to-the-public.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/schumer-and-graham-introduce-cir-to-the-public.html)
more...
house The basic emo hairstyle can be
chris
09-12 05:38 PM
Just now I called and Immigation Officer said that our files are in work flow. (she said that is a good sign , cant give any other info) . :confused:
Any one heard this word before from IO ?
Any one heard this word before from IO ?
tattoo Emo Hairstyles for Summer 2009
arunkk798
03-18 09:25 PM
Can some1 help me to sort out my problem:
- I was working for a company A in L1-B which was about to expire by Dec 2006. So I applied for H1 and got the petition / application approved. I received the I94 also.
- But due to some reason, I travelled back to India and didn't submit the H1-I94 @ the port of exit.
- Now the same company A again processed me L1 in India and Im back to US after a yr. with the new L1 and never told any1 about my existing H1B visa
I need to know whether can I start looking jobs on that H1B without legal procedures?
Is there anything i have to do in order to activate my H1??
Appreciate your feedback in advance....
- I was working for a company A in L1-B which was about to expire by Dec 2006. So I applied for H1 and got the petition / application approved. I received the I94 also.
- But due to some reason, I travelled back to India and didn't submit the H1-I94 @ the port of exit.
- Now the same company A again processed me L1 in India and Im back to US after a yr. with the new L1 and never told any1 about my existing H1B visa
I need to know whether can I start looking jobs on that H1B without legal procedures?
Is there anything i have to do in order to activate my H1??
Appreciate your feedback in advance....
more...
pictures hairstyles and hair colors.
admin
03-02 10:37 AM
In case some of you are not able to figure it out, here it is
Please note that the purpose of our forums is to discuss our campaign and agenda. We want to foster a positive, constructive, discussion about our cause. Solutions for individual cases and problems, debates on the benefits of living in different countries etc. are better addressed on forums like Immigration Portal.
Posts that denigrate members, potential members or even anti-immigrant groups are not welcome - such posts are against Immigration Voice principles.
Please note that the purpose of our forums is to discuss our campaign and agenda. We want to foster a positive, constructive, discussion about our cause. Solutions for individual cases and problems, debates on the benefits of living in different countries etc. are better addressed on forums like Immigration Portal.
Posts that denigrate members, potential members or even anti-immigrant groups are not welcome - such posts are against Immigration Voice principles.
dresses emo haircuts for girls with
ssdtm
12-11 05:47 PM
I understand the wages lesser than specified in Labor is a real potential issue. But what about wages much higher than specified? 10-20% increase will be fine, but what about 50% or 100% jump.
Many of us live in consulting world and in a billing sharing mechanism where your annual wages fluctuates. I am talking to a potential client which can give me a significant raise (please note I am not transferring H1 or using EAD and will be staying with the same GC filing company with 140 approved and 485 pending).
Has anyone ever met a real case when high wage jump created a problem?
Many of us live in consulting world and in a billing sharing mechanism where your annual wages fluctuates. I am talking to a potential client which can give me a significant raise (please note I am not transferring H1 or using EAD and will be staying with the same GC filing company with 140 approved and 485 pending).
Has anyone ever met a real case when high wage jump created a problem?
more...
makeup hairstyles Emo Hairstyles for
Blog Feeds
05-04 01:30 PM
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama will become the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee under which the Immigration Subcommittee is included. Sessions has been one of the Senate's most vocal opponents of immigration reform. Sessions may only be in for the remainder of this Congress and then he is expected to pursue the ranking position on the Budget Committee. Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley has indicated his interest in pursuing the Judiciary job when the next Congress is sworn in.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/sessions-becomes-chief-republican-on-judiciary-committee.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/sessions-becomes-chief-republican-on-judiciary-committee.html)
girlfriend Emo Hairstyles - Emo Haircut
bhartigorkar
06-18 12:56 PM
1. After importing Photoshop file in to Blend,right click on any PSD layer that you want to convert it in control.Then choose MAKE IT CONTROL and you can select any style like button etc that you want.
2. Select the control,in properties panel click on event icon then choose event that you want and double click in it ,then you can write the code for that EVENT in Visual Studio.
Hope it will help.
2. Select the control,in properties panel click on event icon then choose event that you want and double click in it ,then you can write the code for that EVENT in Visual Studio.
Hope it will help.
hairstyles emo haircuts Galerry very
Blog Feeds
12-19 01:00 PM
USCIS has updated the H-1B cap count. (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=138b6138f898d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=91919c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD) As of December 8, CIS has received approximately 61,500 cases against the regular (non-Master's) H-1B cap of 65,000. However, since CIS sets aside up to 6,500 of this 65,000 for nationals of Chile and Singapore, it is possible that they will stop accepting other H-1B petitions soon, if not already. We are still filing new petitions, but with fingers crossed that they are not too late. If you need to file, please do so ASAP.
For more information, see the previous blog posts here (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/search/label/H-1B).
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-7532371070512888691?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/12/h-1b-cap-reached-for-fy2010.html)
For more information, see the previous blog posts here (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/search/label/H-1B).
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-7532371070512888691?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2009/12/h-1b-cap-reached-for-fy2010.html)
smehta1
06-05 11:37 PM
http://www.time.com/time/cartoonsoftheweek/0,29489,1625658_1371878,00.html
raysaikat
08-30 11:40 PM
If the H1-B came with I-94 attached to the I797 form, then your status would be H1-B from the day written on the I-94 form. From that day, you cannot work with the employer A without filing another H1-B with employer A.
No comments:
Post a Comment