dallasmbs
07-14 11:03 PM
From Dallas , will join
wallpaper an art
cox
October 23rd, 2005, 08:59 AM
Hi Michael, nice shots. It's easy to see that you brought the discipline and hard work of your nature work to the studio. What was your lighting setup? Flash? strobes?...
Thanks, Kevin. I'm somewhat embarassed, as I did not use any lighting setup, so your attribution of hard work is, I fear, a little misplaced. I have this house with full floor-to-ceiling windows, and was using natural morning light, diffused by the fog that has hung over the bay for the last week in the AM. I used the camera's meter, either spot or center weighted, with manual bracketing when I thought that was insufficient, as was the case with the wreath & red roses.
...I would be interested in knowing the shooting parameters of these shots, what lenses used, etc...
I was using the 1DMII, and three lenses; the 50mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 Macro, and my newly purchased 16-35mm f/2.8L. Most important was the Manfrotto tripod that allows nearly infinite positioning flexibility. As I said before, I made a cheesy PVC pipe frame and welders clips to hang backgrounds (<10 min fabrication time, <$10). All cases used low f stops, 2-6, & long exposures at low ISO for better quality. I was using the low f stops to help hide the imprefections in the background and give the soft focus effect the customer is looking for.
Good luck! I'm off to the Islands for a week.
I hope islands far from caribbean hurricanes!!
Thanks for the input, all. I suppose that I ought to look at getting some lights... Since I was using natural light, we (customer & I) didn't finish yesterday, and I will have to do the last pieces today (about 2 dozen total). That will also allow me to go over contact sheets with her.
Thanks, Kevin. I'm somewhat embarassed, as I did not use any lighting setup, so your attribution of hard work is, I fear, a little misplaced. I have this house with full floor-to-ceiling windows, and was using natural morning light, diffused by the fog that has hung over the bay for the last week in the AM. I used the camera's meter, either spot or center weighted, with manual bracketing when I thought that was insufficient, as was the case with the wreath & red roses.
...I would be interested in knowing the shooting parameters of these shots, what lenses used, etc...
I was using the 1DMII, and three lenses; the 50mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 Macro, and my newly purchased 16-35mm f/2.8L. Most important was the Manfrotto tripod that allows nearly infinite positioning flexibility. As I said before, I made a cheesy PVC pipe frame and welders clips to hang backgrounds (<10 min fabrication time, <$10). All cases used low f stops, 2-6, & long exposures at low ISO for better quality. I was using the low f stops to help hide the imprefections in the background and give the soft focus effect the customer is looking for.
Good luck! I'm off to the Islands for a week.
I hope islands far from caribbean hurricanes!!
Thanks for the input, all. I suppose that I ought to look at getting some lights... Since I was using natural light, we (customer & I) didn't finish yesterday, and I will have to do the last pieces today (about 2 dozen total). That will also allow me to go over contact sheets with her.
ameryki
02-26 11:19 PM
I have the file numbers etc since I got finger print notice last year so am set up online to track the applications. But just haven't see the receipt notices come through. Should I be concerned?
2011 pictures fat people clip art,
dngoyal
07-27 02:32 PM
Yeah, he did, but no form is signed by me. Moreover I have not given any authorization form.
Is it OK.
Please confirm.
Thanks for the earlier reply.
Is it OK.
Please confirm.
Thanks for the earlier reply.
more...
kumar1
09-26 09:18 AM
You can do that, however, you would find that after 10 years, you are still looking at different US consulates for visa interview but your friends who remained with one employer, got their GC and they have lot more freedom than you do. It is a very difficult question. Either you can move from job to job and get paid more or you just stick to one, sacrifice some money/flexibility but get thing done in one shot.
Worst possible case would be - you realize after 6 years that you should have stuck with one employer!
Worst possible case would be - you realize after 6 years that you should have stuck with one employer!
GCard_Dream
01-31 01:09 PM
Hmmm.. I wonder if that's really the case. H1B extensions past 6 years is only allowed if the petitioner :
1. has a approved labor and 365 days have passed. OR
2. has a approved I-140
Now if the underlying I-140 is revoked which was the basis for the H1B extension then I would think that H1B itself would be invalid. However, if that's not the case and USCIS doesn't invalidate the H1B then it's really great. The only other remaining issue I can see is how do you further extend your H1B after the current on expires because you won't have a approved 140 to support it. Are you just out of luck?
As per the law, your H1B will still be valid even in if I-140 is revoked. However, the only flip side is one will lose the old priority date.
For sure, this is exactly outlined in the law. I have known some cases who are working successfully and legally on H1Bs even after their I-140s revoked (by the way one of them is in 8th year of H1B)
Im 100% sure about what i said. For better clarification, one can contact murthy.com or rajiv.s.khanna
1. has a approved labor and 365 days have passed. OR
2. has a approved I-140
Now if the underlying I-140 is revoked which was the basis for the H1B extension then I would think that H1B itself would be invalid. However, if that's not the case and USCIS doesn't invalidate the H1B then it's really great. The only other remaining issue I can see is how do you further extend your H1B after the current on expires because you won't have a approved 140 to support it. Are you just out of luck?
As per the law, your H1B will still be valid even in if I-140 is revoked. However, the only flip side is one will lose the old priority date.
For sure, this is exactly outlined in the law. I have known some cases who are working successfully and legally on H1Bs even after their I-140s revoked (by the way one of them is in 8th year of H1B)
Im 100% sure about what i said. For better clarification, one can contact murthy.com or rajiv.s.khanna
more...
naveenarjun
09-11 05:24 PM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/5124255.html
2010 Happy Fathers Day!
howzatt
07-16 01:44 PM
I beg to disagree - I think if you read between the lines it is quite clear that potential solutions are being discussed. A solution may be announced but NOT within the 24 hrs that we all are expecting. It may lead to a deadlock in which case the lawsuit would be one of our recourse.
I think we all got a little carried away by the 24HR time frame from Core.
Whats new about this news? We have been hearing this since Thursday evening.
I think we all got a little carried away by the 24HR time frame from Core.
Whats new about this news? We have been hearing this since Thursday evening.
more...
peer123
04-09 11:15 AM
Friends,
I am working for company A and I have offer from Company B, I thinking of my options, Here is my situation
1. I have approved I140 > 180 days in actually 300 days
2. I have approved EAD
3. mine is labor transfer case and I used an existing labor that matched my job profile
4. Company B is ready to hire me in the same/similar role and are ready to give AC21 employment letter with same details as in my labor.
5. I have approved copy of my labor that was transferred and all other copies related to my case like I140, I485 application and Advance parole etc,....
Please give me some guidance on if I should be accepting the offer from Company B, I am concerned because my labor was transferred from another employee. I have worked for company A for nearly 4 years now and my GC is in process for almost 4 years, labor switch was done like 2 years ago.
Based on this explanation do you see any risk and am I missing anything here, in terms of getting specific documentation from company A application..
please help
bumping it up... - please provide your input
I am working for company A and I have offer from Company B, I thinking of my options, Here is my situation
1. I have approved I140 > 180 days in actually 300 days
2. I have approved EAD
3. mine is labor transfer case and I used an existing labor that matched my job profile
4. Company B is ready to hire me in the same/similar role and are ready to give AC21 employment letter with same details as in my labor.
5. I have approved copy of my labor that was transferred and all other copies related to my case like I140, I485 application and Advance parole etc,....
Please give me some guidance on if I should be accepting the offer from Company B, I am concerned because my labor was transferred from another employee. I have worked for company A for nearly 4 years now and my GC is in process for almost 4 years, labor switch was done like 2 years ago.
Based on this explanation do you see any risk and am I missing anything here, in terms of getting specific documentation from company A application..
please help
bumping it up... - please provide your input
hair stick figure thinking
sush
07-09 01:06 PM
Mine is TSC peding since May 2006.
Upgraded to PP on Jun 19th 2007, no updates yet.
Upgraded to PP on Jun 19th 2007, no updates yet.
more...
cptbaseball
05-14 02:27 PM
Well, you didn't mention in your original post that COS date is 01/10/2009 and I assumed that COS date was date of approval.
In this case, yes your H1 COS is approved with deferred change of status date of Oct 1st. And Hernandez Letter does cover such scenario.
However, please keep this mind (mentioned in that link)
Since when you come back you will have different I-94 number as compare to I-94 number on COS approval letter. This can cause explanation/issues down the line. Please consult your attorney and have professional advice.
Hernandez Letter does not have binding force of law. This is something difficult to ignore for me. But, that's just me.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.
Since you mention that Hernandez Letter is a grey area. To be on a safe side, when I come back on Aug-19-2009 on L-1B, can I file another COS (only COS, not H-1B) with USCIS again with the new 1-94 that I would get at POE. That would ensure now that I am on correct status after Oct 1, but I'm not sure whether this is possible or whether USCIS would decline it stating that it was a duplicate etc.
In this case, yes your H1 COS is approved with deferred change of status date of Oct 1st. And Hernandez Letter does cover such scenario.
However, please keep this mind (mentioned in that link)
Since when you come back you will have different I-94 number as compare to I-94 number on COS approval letter. This can cause explanation/issues down the line. Please consult your attorney and have professional advice.
Hernandez Letter does not have binding force of law. This is something difficult to ignore for me. But, that's just me.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.
Since you mention that Hernandez Letter is a grey area. To be on a safe side, when I come back on Aug-19-2009 on L-1B, can I file another COS (only COS, not H-1B) with USCIS again with the new 1-94 that I would get at POE. That would ensure now that I am on correct status after Oct 1, but I'm not sure whether this is possible or whether USCIS would decline it stating that it was a duplicate etc.
hot thinking and writing
vishwak
02-01 01:40 PM
Congrats....Enjoy.
more...
house All clip art in Discovery
reddyram
07-19 01:36 PM
There are too many If's and Buts over here.
If you confront your company telling them you want to leave , they will immediately summon you to return back to India. There is NO WAY where you can be in US, X fer H1 and keep them happy..IMHO ..I doubt any.They have very strict dictum because this the biggest fear - ur using them instead of them using u .
So u can respectfully return back to India , to keep them happy and then start all over again OR
u can do some hunting :
<> Prev WIPRO employees "Jumping" record. What happened to them
<> Date some HR , BA pass , aunty over there . "Make her happy aunty " every day and night :D and then she will tell u , in realistic terms how ur company pursues cases like u so u know what is the likely outcome.
If you confront your company telling them you want to leave , they will immediately summon you to return back to India. There is NO WAY where you can be in US, X fer H1 and keep them happy..IMHO ..I doubt any.They have very strict dictum because this the biggest fear - ur using them instead of them using u .
So u can respectfully return back to India , to keep them happy and then start all over again OR
u can do some hunting :
<> Prev WIPRO employees "Jumping" record. What happened to them
<> Date some HR , BA pass , aunty over there . "Make her happy aunty " every day and night :D and then she will tell u , in realistic terms how ur company pursues cases like u so u know what is the likely outcome.
tattoo Thinking Blue Stick Man
sh2005
08-13 11:24 AM
From my notice the processing date is meaningless at TSC because the dates are mostly the processing windows. For example, I140 was Jan 13 in July notice, which was 6 months behind. If you take a look on AP and EAD, they were just 3 months behind.
It turns out to me that processing date is the date that you are entitled to make a phone call to request your status. You may be lucky to have your EAD in 1 or 2 months. But if you do not have it in three months, you can make a call to request a reason they can not deny your request. But if your date is later than the processing date, they may turn down your request or ask you to wait.
That's it!
It makes predicting when our applicatios will be done a little harder :)
It turns out to me that processing date is the date that you are entitled to make a phone call to request your status. You may be lucky to have your EAD in 1 or 2 months. But if you do not have it in three months, you can make a call to request a reason they can not deny your request. But if your date is later than the processing date, they may turn down your request or ask you to wait.
That's it!
It makes predicting when our applicatios will be done a little harder :)
more...
pictures Royalty-free clipart picture
munnu77
04-15 03:21 PM
Continue with the GC..The wmployer has to pay the salry on the GC only after your I 485 is approved. Wht i think, wht you are getting now has no connection with GC,
if they are decresing your salry, inform the DOL , you will be alright if ur decreased salry is more thn wht is required by the DOL.
Contact an attorney, i am sure there is a way out.
if they are decresing your salry, inform the DOL , you will be alright if ur decreased salry is more thn wht is required by the DOL.
Contact an attorney, i am sure there is a way out.
dresses clip art man thinking
gsc999
09-07 12:54 PM
I noticed that California has around 20 names. I know that around 35 to 40 ppl are flying from CA. I think that is would be a similar case with other states.
Guys, this is required info. that will allow us to schedule an appointment with lawmakers. We have to provide this info. to them to receive meeting confirmation.
Please add your information asap, this is urgent and important
Guys, this is required info. that will allow us to schedule an appointment with lawmakers. We have to provide this info. to them to receive meeting confirmation.
Please add your information asap, this is urgent and important
more...
makeup Man Reading Newspaper clip art
Madhuri
07-11 11:02 PM
If this is true it's really horrible and scary that this gov. agency is handling our applications.
This is beginning to look more and more like a organized and deliberate attempt to block people from filing for AOS.If the mysterious "knowledgeable official" quoted on the website can be summoned in court- that would be game over for the USCIS right there......
http://www.usimmlaw.com/current_information.htm
Copying the contents of the website below :
Visa numbers WERE available July 2nd!!
We have confirmed with a knowledgeable official in the Department of State Visa Office that USCIS was requesting visa numbers on Sunday July 1st, and Monday morning July 2nd - and that visa numbers were still being issued as late as the morning of July 2nd!
In fact, close to 30,000 visa numbers were requested and issued in July - through the morning of July 2nd. And we believe that many - if not most - of the requests made in the first two days of July were for applicants whose priority dates were not current in June!
So how can USCIS refuse to accept I-485 filings received BEFORE the State Department issued its notice that all visa numbers had been used???? We have not yet confirmed the return of any I-485s filed in July. But we do know that applications were reaching the USCIS before the State Department announcement - and while the USCIS was frantically working to use up the entire year's allocation.
USCIS did not use all visa numbers before July 2nd.
Did USCIS actually use the visa numbers it requested????
Historically, the USCIS doesn't request a visa number from the Department of State until it is ready to grant the adjustment of status application. US Consuls overseas request visa numbers the month before they intend to issue the immigrant visa. This is the reason why consuls return about ten percent of the visa numbers requested - and why USCIS does not generally return any numbers.
In fact, in making allocations of visa numbers, the Department of State factors in an expected return rate for consuls - but not for the USCIS. And the USCIS - before this June - used about 85% of the total immigrant visa numbers available.
However, already this month, the USCIS has been returning visa numbers. This confirms our earlier suspicion that the only way the USCIS could request 68,000 visa numbers in a matter of weeks was to request them in advance of adjudicating cases.
We believe USCIS exhausted the visa numbers by simply requesting them - not by using them. If so, and for reasons we will post shortly, we believe that over 30,000 visa numbers requested by USCIS will go unused - and will be wasted this year!
This is beginning to look more and more like a organized and deliberate attempt to block people from filing for AOS.If the mysterious "knowledgeable official" quoted on the website can be summoned in court- that would be game over for the USCIS right there......
http://www.usimmlaw.com/current_information.htm
Copying the contents of the website below :
Visa numbers WERE available July 2nd!!
We have confirmed with a knowledgeable official in the Department of State Visa Office that USCIS was requesting visa numbers on Sunday July 1st, and Monday morning July 2nd - and that visa numbers were still being issued as late as the morning of July 2nd!
In fact, close to 30,000 visa numbers were requested and issued in July - through the morning of July 2nd. And we believe that many - if not most - of the requests made in the first two days of July were for applicants whose priority dates were not current in June!
So how can USCIS refuse to accept I-485 filings received BEFORE the State Department issued its notice that all visa numbers had been used???? We have not yet confirmed the return of any I-485s filed in July. But we do know that applications were reaching the USCIS before the State Department announcement - and while the USCIS was frantically working to use up the entire year's allocation.
USCIS did not use all visa numbers before July 2nd.
Did USCIS actually use the visa numbers it requested????
Historically, the USCIS doesn't request a visa number from the Department of State until it is ready to grant the adjustment of status application. US Consuls overseas request visa numbers the month before they intend to issue the immigrant visa. This is the reason why consuls return about ten percent of the visa numbers requested - and why USCIS does not generally return any numbers.
In fact, in making allocations of visa numbers, the Department of State factors in an expected return rate for consuls - but not for the USCIS. And the USCIS - before this June - used about 85% of the total immigrant visa numbers available.
However, already this month, the USCIS has been returning visa numbers. This confirms our earlier suspicion that the only way the USCIS could request 68,000 visa numbers in a matter of weeks was to request them in advance of adjudicating cases.
We believe USCIS exhausted the visa numbers by simply requesting them - not by using them. If so, and for reasons we will post shortly, we believe that over 30,000 visa numbers requested by USCIS will go unused - and will be wasted this year!
girlfriend Crap Hound: Clipart mania zine
chi_shark
03-11 11:06 AM
I worked for an employer in WY 2004 as a physician and since then i resigned and moved onto another job with a new labor and I-140. However last year at the time of July isa bulletin fiasco, I asked my employer from WY in 2004 to file for an I-140 based on the previous approved labor condition in 2004 to retain that priority date under EB -2.
Employer knows I have no intent of joining them after the green card and I have my own practice , so i donot intend to join the practice.
In this scenario, if this considered a misuse of retaining priority date and how do i prove the intent and will the USCIS allow a situation like this?
i think you need to have intent to work for the employer when filing 140... without intent, it is likely that this will be considered fraud. but all this comes up only if you are called for interview or if there are detailed rfe(s)... then, when you go for citizenship, this could come up again... but like someone else said, you are better off with a lawyer's opinion...
Employer knows I have no intent of joining them after the green card and I have my own practice , so i donot intend to join the practice.
In this scenario, if this considered a misuse of retaining priority date and how do i prove the intent and will the USCIS allow a situation like this?
i think you need to have intent to work for the employer when filing 140... without intent, it is likely that this will be considered fraud. but all this comes up only if you are called for interview or if there are detailed rfe(s)... then, when you go for citizenship, this could come up again... but like someone else said, you are better off with a lawyer's opinion...
hairstyles clip art man thinking.
Libra
10-24 10:08 AM
yeah it took almost a year to send an RFE that too after repeated calls to CIS.
Libra,
Congrats!!! Did it take an year for the RFE itself???
Romesh and naresh,
Any updates?
thanks,
Sampath
Libra,
Congrats!!! Did it take an year for the RFE itself???
Romesh and naresh,
Any updates?
thanks,
Sampath
GCHope2011
02-05 06:31 AM
Hi EveryOne,
I got my Green card in mail yesterday. I want to thank IV and everyone for all the support during this GC journey. I wish everyone all the best for their green card process. I wish everyone gets to file 485 irrespective of priority dates and ultimately get their green cards. This is a question to Admin, i have a recursive donation going on, I would like to make a one time donation and stop the recursive donation.
Thanks.
Congrats ivar - you are now a free man!!
My humble request - please do contribute to the cause that held you back for so long. If not financially, then through your efforts in advocacy & legislator meetings - every little bit counts.
I got my Green card in mail yesterday. I want to thank IV and everyone for all the support during this GC journey. I wish everyone all the best for their green card process. I wish everyone gets to file 485 irrespective of priority dates and ultimately get their green cards. This is a question to Admin, i have a recursive donation going on, I would like to make a one time donation and stop the recursive donation.
Thanks.
Congrats ivar - you are now a free man!!
My humble request - please do contribute to the cause that held you back for so long. If not financially, then through your efforts in advocacy & legislator meetings - every little bit counts.
raju123
06-26 02:51 PM
Numberusa reported following possible 24 amendments and Cantwell/Kyl amendment is not there. I hope this news is not right.
Democratic Amendments
* Dodd-Menendez S.A. 1199: would increase the annual cap on green cards for parents and extend the parent visitor visa.
* Webb S.A. 1313: Community ties for [amnesty]
* Baucus-Tester S.A. 1236: would strike all reference[s] to REAL ID.
* Sanders-Grassley S.A. 1332 : prohibits companies that have announced mass lay-offs from receiving any new visas, unless these companies could prove that overall employment at their companies would not be reduced by these lay-offs.
* Byrd-Gregg-Cochran S.A. 1344: adds a $500 fee to obtain [amnesty] and sets aside the revenues collected in order to fund border and interior enforcement.
* Menendez-Obama-Feingold S.A. 1317: increases family points in merit system
* Brown S.A. 1340: requires that before employers can be approved to employ Y-1 workers, they must have listed the specific job opportunity with the state employment service agency.
* McCaskill S.A. 1468: increases ban on federal contracts, grants or cooperative agreements to employers who are repeat violators of hiring immigrants who are not authorized to work
* Levin-Brownback S.A.1486: gives access to Iraqis to apply for refugee status under existing U.S. law.
* Leahy S.A. 1386: protect scholars who have been persecuted in their home countries on account of their beliefs, scholarship, or identity.
* Schumer: provides for tamper-proof biometric social security cards
* Boxer S.A. 1198: reduces Y visa cap by number of Y workers who overstay
Republican Amendments
* Alexander S.A. 1161: requires DHS and the Department of State to notify a foreign embassy when one of their nationals has become a U.S. citizen
* Bond S.A. 1255: prohibits green cards for [illegal aliens granted amnesty]
* Coleman S.A. 1473: outlaws state and local policies that prevent public officials * including police and health and safety workers (except for emergency medical assistance)*from inquiring about the immigration status of those they serve if there is �probable cause� to believe the individual being questioned is undocumented.
* Domenici S.A. 1335/1258: increases Federal judgeships
* Ensign S.A. 1490: redetermines work history for current beneficiaries of social security depending on their citizenship status
* Graham S.A. 1465: enforcement. Still being drafted.
* Grassley-Baucus-Obama S.A. 1441: strikes and replaces Title III on employer enforcement
* Hutchinson S.A. 1440: changes the �touchback� requirement from the time of applying for adjustment of status, as it currently stands in the Senate proposed bill, to the time of applying for the Z visa. Increases the number of individuals required to touchback
* Thune S.A. 1174: prevents [illegal aliens] from [being granted amnesty] until all triggers have been met.
* Chambliss S.A. 1318: Totalization agreements
* Isakson S.A. 1282: Preemption/Home Depot
* Graham: Criminal penalties/mandatory minimums for overstays
There is a news in news article thread that Senators Cantwell & Kyl have proposed a amendment which will open up a parallel employer sponsored GC path. Anyone has information regarding this amendment?
Democratic Amendments
* Dodd-Menendez S.A. 1199: would increase the annual cap on green cards for parents and extend the parent visitor visa.
* Webb S.A. 1313: Community ties for [amnesty]
* Baucus-Tester S.A. 1236: would strike all reference[s] to REAL ID.
* Sanders-Grassley S.A. 1332 : prohibits companies that have announced mass lay-offs from receiving any new visas, unless these companies could prove that overall employment at their companies would not be reduced by these lay-offs.
* Byrd-Gregg-Cochran S.A. 1344: adds a $500 fee to obtain [amnesty] and sets aside the revenues collected in order to fund border and interior enforcement.
* Menendez-Obama-Feingold S.A. 1317: increases family points in merit system
* Brown S.A. 1340: requires that before employers can be approved to employ Y-1 workers, they must have listed the specific job opportunity with the state employment service agency.
* McCaskill S.A. 1468: increases ban on federal contracts, grants or cooperative agreements to employers who are repeat violators of hiring immigrants who are not authorized to work
* Levin-Brownback S.A.1486: gives access to Iraqis to apply for refugee status under existing U.S. law.
* Leahy S.A. 1386: protect scholars who have been persecuted in their home countries on account of their beliefs, scholarship, or identity.
* Schumer: provides for tamper-proof biometric social security cards
* Boxer S.A. 1198: reduces Y visa cap by number of Y workers who overstay
Republican Amendments
* Alexander S.A. 1161: requires DHS and the Department of State to notify a foreign embassy when one of their nationals has become a U.S. citizen
* Bond S.A. 1255: prohibits green cards for [illegal aliens granted amnesty]
* Coleman S.A. 1473: outlaws state and local policies that prevent public officials * including police and health and safety workers (except for emergency medical assistance)*from inquiring about the immigration status of those they serve if there is �probable cause� to believe the individual being questioned is undocumented.
* Domenici S.A. 1335/1258: increases Federal judgeships
* Ensign S.A. 1490: redetermines work history for current beneficiaries of social security depending on their citizenship status
* Graham S.A. 1465: enforcement. Still being drafted.
* Grassley-Baucus-Obama S.A. 1441: strikes and replaces Title III on employer enforcement
* Hutchinson S.A. 1440: changes the �touchback� requirement from the time of applying for adjustment of status, as it currently stands in the Senate proposed bill, to the time of applying for the Z visa. Increases the number of individuals required to touchback
* Thune S.A. 1174: prevents [illegal aliens] from [being granted amnesty] until all triggers have been met.
* Chambliss S.A. 1318: Totalization agreements
* Isakson S.A. 1282: Preemption/Home Depot
* Graham: Criminal penalties/mandatory minimums for overstays
There is a news in news article thread that Senators Cantwell & Kyl have proposed a amendment which will open up a parallel employer sponsored GC path. Anyone has information regarding this amendment?
No comments:
Post a Comment