muhamm5
02-05 10:43 PM
I am on H-1 B , and planning to apply for Labor certification - working for an Automobile manufacturing Company in Engineering department,my qualifications are Bachelor in Mechanical Engineering-SOC CODE (17-2141), Masters in Industrial Engineering SOC CODE(17-2112).
my current job responsibilities matches with Industrial designer, Just want to ask in order to apply Labor can i use Commercial & Industrial designer SOC CODE(27-1021), also base cause for using this code is meeting Salary requirements, other two codes giving high salaries compare to this code which is matching my salary code, . help will be appreciated
my current job responsibilities matches with Industrial designer, Just want to ask in order to apply Labor can i use Commercial & Industrial designer SOC CODE(27-1021), also base cause for using this code is meeting Salary requirements, other two codes giving high salaries compare to this code which is matching my salary code, . help will be appreciated
wallpaper musical instruments
Blog Feeds
01-04 08:10 AM
USCIS has announced that it is working on a rule to create an electronic registration system for H-1B employers subject to the annual cap. Employers would first register an application and be allocated an H-1B cap number and then would file the case. The idea is that employers would need to register to claim an H-1B cap number first and then if they are selected, they then would prepare and file the case. Right now, employers have to go to all the trouble of preparing a case that may be rejected simply because the visa allocation is filled. I think...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/uscis-planning-to-move-to-pre-registration-process-for-h-1b-cap-cases.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/uscis-planning-to-move-to-pre-registration-process-for-h-1b-cap-cases.html)
nomorelogins
01-11 11:18 AM
i guess as long as your AP is valid
2011 Musical Instruments
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
more...
Blog Feeds
04-23 11:32 AM
As of April 6, 2009, all applicants for non-immigrant visas at the U.S. consulate in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, must now enroll at the Applicant Service Center (ASC) fingerprint appointment before attending the interview appointment. ASC employees take applicants’ pictures and fingerprints and provide that data to the consulate. Non-immigrant visas are issued to foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States on a temporary basis. More information is available at:
www.ciudadjuarez.usconsulate.gov/non-immigrant_visas.html (http://www.ciudadjuarez.usconsulate.gov/non-immigrant_visas.html)
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Immigration-law-answers-blog/~3/o39aUeP8HSg/)
www.ciudadjuarez.usconsulate.gov/non-immigrant_visas.html (http://www.ciudadjuarez.usconsulate.gov/non-immigrant_visas.html)
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Immigration-law-answers-blog/~3/o39aUeP8HSg/)
indianabacklog
06-20 08:13 AM
guys who have already filed 485.
Do u know if its possible to schedule an earlier fingerprinting date? can we just walk to a ASC with our appointment letter and get our fingerprinting done?
I filed for AOS at the beginning of May and had fingerprints done one month later. How quickly do you want them done?
Do u know if its possible to schedule an earlier fingerprinting date? can we just walk to a ASC with our appointment letter and get our fingerprinting done?
I filed for AOS at the beginning of May and had fingerprints done one month later. How quickly do you want them done?
more...
ramus
08-02 12:01 PM
Please update your profile and let IV know if you plan to join DC rally..
Thanks.
Hi,
I got an LUD on my I140 on 07/28/07. There is no message change though. This I-140 was approved way back in Aug 2006. I have filed my I-485 etc on June 1st 07, and its in process. Does anyone know what doesn this LUD mean.
Thanks
Thanks.
Hi,
I got an LUD on my I140 on 07/28/07. There is no message change though. This I-140 was approved way back in Aug 2006. I have filed my I-485 etc on June 1st 07, and its in process. Does anyone know what doesn this LUD mean.
Thanks
2010 Picture of Musical Instruments
shirish
08-04 03:27 PM
I need an advice.
I was in US since Apr 1999. FIled for GC in oct 2000. I got my I-140 approved.But then i had to go back to india as my company transferred me to india office in Oct 2001.
I left that company in jan 2004 and joined another company in india. Then in July 2004 i came back to US thru a consulting firm. An din jan 2005 my client offered a job. So since Jan 2005 i am working at the cients office as their employee. I filed for LC in Sep 2005, it got approved in oct 2005 (Just mised by 3 weeks)
My question is was was it possible to use the PD from my previous GC. which is Oct 2000.My atternoy told me it is not possible. But i saw similer posting on IV, hence i am curious. Also if possible is there any way i can get the old GC at this stage,my I-140 is approved this time too.,
-Shirish
I was in US since Apr 1999. FIled for GC in oct 2000. I got my I-140 approved.But then i had to go back to india as my company transferred me to india office in Oct 2001.
I left that company in jan 2004 and joined another company in india. Then in July 2004 i came back to US thru a consulting firm. An din jan 2005 my client offered a job. So since Jan 2005 i am working at the cients office as their employee. I filed for LC in Sep 2005, it got approved in oct 2005 (Just mised by 3 weeks)
My question is was was it possible to use the PD from my previous GC. which is Oct 2000.My atternoy told me it is not possible. But i saw similer posting on IV, hence i am curious. Also if possible is there any way i can get the old GC at this stage,my I-140 is approved this time too.,
-Shirish
more...
Templarian
09-21 03:41 PM
:thumb:
I can has grammar now?
http://kirupa.templarian.com/smh.gif
I can has grammar now?
http://kirupa.templarian.com/smh.gif
hair Musical Instruments III
portem1
01-19 06:35 AM
I am having a problem and dont know where to start on this one, my experience in c# programming is average and was hoping for some advice on this subject. I have a disc image (an exact duplicate of a 40gb hard disc drive) the format is a dd image.
My task requires me to programmatically read through the files on this image, compare file extensions and recognise certain file types on the drive. Is this possible? I cannot find anyone who has attempted this on the internet and would appreciate any guidance to get the ball rolling.
Thank you
My task requires me to programmatically read through the files on this image, compare file extensions and recognise certain file types on the drive. Is this possible? I cannot find anyone who has attempted this on the internet and would appreciate any guidance to get the ball rolling.
Thank you
more...
mugyaded
11-10 03:22 AM
http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt285/mugyaclan/axobutton.png
hot Musical Instruments for Kids
PundaSmith
12-17 09:52 PM
Hello,
I am in the process of gathering my documents for EB1 filling. My lawyer and I went through my publication list today.
I have a number of peer reviewed publications that have been accepted and available online (with DOI - Digital Identification Identifiers) but have not yet made it to paper copies.
My lawyer is hesitant to include these "Online First" articles since they are not technically out He claimed that immigration tends to lean towards traditional publication channels and therefore it would be preferable to since technically, they are still in press.
Is this accurate? Under what conditions can one include accepted (online first) publications?
Thanks - PundaSmith
I am in the process of gathering my documents for EB1 filling. My lawyer and I went through my publication list today.
I have a number of peer reviewed publications that have been accepted and available online (with DOI - Digital Identification Identifiers) but have not yet made it to paper copies.
My lawyer is hesitant to include these "Online First" articles since they are not technically out He claimed that immigration tends to lean towards traditional publication channels and therefore it would be preferable to since technically, they are still in press.
Is this accurate? Under what conditions can one include accepted (online first) publications?
Thanks - PundaSmith
more...
house Musical Instruments Royalty
kumar1
01-15 12:03 PM
I surrendered all of them to airline staff. I also had 3 of them.
tattoo Ethnic Musical Instruments
udayak
07-20 05:11 PM
I am also looking for the same information.
Please let me know, how can a person hold
multiple H1's
Thanks
Please let me know, how can a person hold
multiple H1's
Thanks
more...
pictures musical instruments icons
ravil
01-12 06:36 PM
Hi All,
I got H1 B visa recently which has been processed by my consultant. Right now I am working in india. My current employer is asking me to go for an assignment to US with L1 Visa. My question is :
1) Do i get any problem for my current H1 visa, If I attend again to Embassy for L1.
Some of my friends are telling me that my current H1B visa will be cancelled in order to get L1 .. Please any one clarify my doubt...
Regards
Ravil
I got H1 B visa recently which has been processed by my consultant. Right now I am working in india. My current employer is asking me to go for an assignment to US with L1 Visa. My question is :
1) Do i get any problem for my current H1 visa, If I attend again to Embassy for L1.
Some of my friends are telling me that my current H1B visa will be cancelled in order to get L1 .. Please any one clarify my doubt...
Regards
Ravil
dresses Nepali Musical Instruments
gcforall99
04-02 11:24 PM
I received a RFE on 485 for a updated G-325 form and a Employment letter stating the Job details, Salary and if the Immigrant visa petition(labor certification) terms still exist. Iam a Jul,2007 filer, I have another 12 days to respond, this RFE was received by the company attorney. Now neither Employer/Company Attorney are responding to Phone calls/Emails regarding responding this to RFE. I do not understand what is their concern but came to know that few others from the same company got RFE on 485. Time is running out and if there is no response to the RFE, eventually the case will be denied. What are my options, Iam in my 4th year of my H1. I have a Valid EAD till Nov'2010 and H1 valid till Aug'2011. What will be my status if the 485 gets denied. Can I transfer the H1 to another employer and will need to start the GC process all over again ?
Any advice suggestions appreciated.
Thanks,
gcforall99
Any advice suggestions appreciated.
Thanks,
gcforall99
more...
makeup musical instrument.
aadimanav
07-07 11:25 PM
Has anyone seen today's Fox News "The Journal Edition Report". In the last-section of the this programme the journalists talk about this week's "hits and misses". One of the journalist was talking about the injustice done to LEGAL immigrants because of latest visa bulletin stuff.
The programme will be repated
1:30 AM (morning) EST - Sunday - The Journal Editorial Report - Fox News
It is not that important, but I thought I should write in case someone is watchnig news at that time. It is half-an-hour programme and that segment "hits and misses" comes after the last-break (I think during last 10 minutes).
The programme will be repated
1:30 AM (morning) EST - Sunday - The Journal Editorial Report - Fox News
It is not that important, but I thought I should write in case someone is watchnig news at that time. It is half-an-hour programme and that segment "hits and misses" comes after the last-break (I think during last 10 minutes).
girlfriend Musical Instruments
CADude
08-23 01:44 PM
NO it's RIRO [Random In Random Out] process.
Lots of July 2nd filer are waiting.. So have faith and more wait..:)
I guess USCIS is sending Receipt Notes according to priority dates meaning with 2006-7 priority dates will get receipts later.
My 485 reached on 2nd july...No Update yet.
Can I ask any one get RN with priority date later than 2006?
Lots of July 2nd filer are waiting.. So have faith and more wait..:)
I guess USCIS is sending Receipt Notes according to priority dates meaning with 2006-7 priority dates will get receipts later.
My 485 reached on 2nd july...No Update yet.
Can I ask any one get RN with priority date later than 2006?
hairstyles Musical instruments
waiting4gc02
01-23 03:44 PM
Guys:
just talked to an IO at Nebraska and was told that my file is waiting for an officer to look at.
When I asked how long will it be before they get to it, she says they have like 500 cases each but that I should be hearing something soon?
Any ideas ...how soon ? Has anyone else had a similar conversation and how long did it take before they heard something??
I know there is nothing definate...but just wanting to share and hear back if anyone had similar experience.
Thanks and good luck
just talked to an IO at Nebraska and was told that my file is waiting for an officer to look at.
When I asked how long will it be before they get to it, she says they have like 500 cases each but that I should be hearing something soon?
Any ideas ...how soon ? Has anyone else had a similar conversation and how long did it take before they heard something??
I know there is nothing definate...but just wanting to share and hear back if anyone had similar experience.
Thanks and good luck
Blog Feeds
01-04 08:10 AM
USCIS has announced that it is working on a rule to create an electronic registration system for H-1B employers subject to the annual cap. Employers would first register an application and be allocated an H-1B cap number and then would file the case. The idea is that employers would need to register to claim an H-1B cap number first and then if they are selected, they then would prepare and file the case. Right now, employers have to go to all the trouble of preparing a case that may be rejected simply because the visa allocation is filled. I think...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/uscis-planning-to-move-to-pre-registration-process-for-h-1b-cap-cases.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/uscis-planning-to-move-to-pre-registration-process-for-h-1b-cap-cases.html)
STAmisha
02-19 05:16 PM
Does anybody has experience of new H1 stamping in Canada (current status in US is H4 visa)
No comments:
Post a Comment