lonedesi
08-05 11:18 AM
LoneDesi:
What changes are needed when sending a letter from an EB3-I point of view?
The processing dates you have mentioned correspond only to EB2.
Thanks.
Just EB2 to EB3 and mention that processing of I-140's has nothing to do with the category you are in. Only at I-485 stage the category is important to obtain a immigrant visa from DOS. So make appropriate changes and feel free to modify the letter to suit your situation.
What changes are needed when sending a letter from an EB3-I point of view?
The processing dates you have mentioned correspond only to EB2.
Thanks.
Just EB2 to EB3 and mention that processing of I-140's has nothing to do with the category you are in. Only at I-485 stage the category is important to obtain a immigrant visa from DOS. So make appropriate changes and feel free to modify the letter to suit your situation.
wallpaper poems for friends forever.
leo2606
08-12 12:59 PM
I don't think so, all centers which handle 485s will look at the application delivered date as the the RD.
I was asking this because some agencies consider the post marked date as the date the appllication was filed. But thanks for the response
I was asking this because some agencies consider the post marked date as the date the appllication was filed. But thanks for the response
fruity
07-23 06:32 PM
hi fruity..
we have the same concerns regarding the ds230 approval..
anyway, i just wanna ask about what you said earlier.. is it true that there are some August scheduled embassy interviews being cancelled? what did those people you know exactly said about this?
hear from you.. thanx
Yeah, PD is April 2005 EB3ROW, and its just frustrationg when you see a lot getting their approvals with a much later PD's. He was scheduled for interview in Aug. she already recieved her packet 4 when Aug vb came out and reinstated July VB. I knew that it had something to do with July vb fiasco since he got his packet 4 after July 2. There were no visas left for that time, so AUg. vb doesn't really matter.
we have the same concerns regarding the ds230 approval..
anyway, i just wanna ask about what you said earlier.. is it true that there are some August scheduled embassy interviews being cancelled? what did those people you know exactly said about this?
hear from you.. thanx
Yeah, PD is April 2005 EB3ROW, and its just frustrationg when you see a lot getting their approvals with a much later PD's. He was scheduled for interview in Aug. she already recieved her packet 4 when Aug vb came out and reinstated July VB. I knew that it had something to do with July vb fiasco since he got his packet 4 after July 2. There were no visas left for that time, so AUg. vb doesn't really matter.
2011 anniversary poems for husband
indyanguy
11-05 08:11 PM
So far lot of discussions on how to start LLC/Inc
but how to start a company without changing current status
Here is my status:
My wife and I are on H1 and we got our EAD's now the question are:-
My wife remains on her H1 for safe....until we get GC.
Is it possible me to stay on H1 and start a LLC using my EAD to do a parttime business ?
Please provide Pros and cons if any.....
Thanks
According to some lawyers, once you start using your EAD for either full time or part time work, your H1 is invalidated
but how to start a company without changing current status
Here is my status:
My wife and I are on H1 and we got our EAD's now the question are:-
My wife remains on her H1 for safe....until we get GC.
Is it possible me to stay on H1 and start a LLC using my EAD to do a parttime business ?
Please provide Pros and cons if any.....
Thanks
According to some lawyers, once you start using your EAD for either full time or part time work, your H1 is invalidated
more...
meridiani.planum
12-19 12:40 AM
I agree with you. I think USCIS has made a conservative estimate, most likely, based on past spillover numbers. However, situation is little different this time. With the bad economy, there were less number of PERM applications filed in FY2009 that will claim visa numbers in FY2010. Also, with DOL taking ages to approve new PERM applications, there will be less applicants, that filed PERM this FY, claiming visa number. Thus, there will be lot more spillover this time than previous years. IV has taken this into consideration while doing its math but we cannot expect the same from USCIS. I think EB2I should at least move till mid if not till 2008.
bad economy of 2009 is irrelevant to PD movement because of the huge backlog of pending cases. Just see the stats the USCIS had released earlier. Also, PERM applications dont take visa number. A visa number is allocated when a 485 is being approved.
So EBI reaching 2008 is almost certainly a zero possibility unless there are some legislative changes. There are simply too many pending cases from 2005, 2006.
bad economy of 2009 is irrelevant to PD movement because of the huge backlog of pending cases. Just see the stats the USCIS had released earlier. Also, PERM applications dont take visa number. A visa number is allocated when a 485 is being approved.
So EBI reaching 2008 is almost certainly a zero possibility unless there are some legislative changes. There are simply too many pending cases from 2005, 2006.
leoindiano
03-04 12:30 PM
Cases are being pre-adjucated, So there are RFEs and other inquiries...After this, they will wait for visa number in PD Queue....which is a good thing...This assures there will be no wastage this year....
Anycase, it looks like there will be significant forward movement...
My estimate
EB2I will enter 2005 in next 2 bulletins.
EB3I into 2003 in next 2 bulletins.
Anycase, it looks like there will be significant forward movement...
My estimate
EB2I will enter 2005 in next 2 bulletins.
EB3I into 2003 in next 2 bulletins.
more...
Green.Tech
05-27 02:49 PM
No contributions at all!
Come on folks, contribute!!!
Come on folks, contribute!!!
2010 irthday poems for cousins.
knnmbd
04-25 12:59 PM
Guys what about the type of visa? I mean shud the start date be ur H1B start date or ur F1 entry date? Coz if some people start on an H1 a lot of us also started on an F1. In that case doesnt it make more sense to root for the clause that says the immigrant can apply for his own GC that is employer independant? If i am not mistaken, is that not already a part of the PACE act?
Besides a lot of people are not sure for a while, if they even want to apply for their GCs or not initially. I personally know of atleast 3 such people. By putting the responsibility of application of the GC into the immigrant's hands, and empowering the applicant to apply for himself/herself, the process becomes a lot more transparent and fair. That way the day the immigrant decides to apply and applies is their PD. That way if someone does not start it as soon as he/she can, it is now up to them. Since the applicant Can apply for himself instead of being sponsored for a GC by an employer, it is no longer employer based, so no one can fault the employer saying that, "They didnt file for me for a year".
In my opinion, just pushing ur PD to the date u entered will not really help a lot. Coz say ur current PD is Feb 2002 EB3 but u had entered in 1998. DOL/UCSIS will say, ok lets do that, and the next day they will say, Now the Retrogression goes back to the year 1996. Is that not possible? Currently what we need is the immigrant to be in total control of his/her GC process. That way the GC can take even 10 years, so long as the applicant and dependants can avail of EADs and Travel permits which are longer than just 1 year increments. If we are thinking long term, then shudnt we be looking at this aspect? The GC itself represents nothing more than total freedom in ur career and it's choices. If we can achieve the same thing without the actual GC, isint that our goal?
I agree. Also, since F1 is not a dual intent visa this will not hold water. Anyways this is a ridiculous demand. We are not the law makers and we should consider ourselves lucky that couple of IV's amendments are in a few of the senator’s bills, though there are no guarantees if they will be included in the final text or let alone be passed. We should only push for what is already include in the 2 bills and not confuse everyone every time one of us comes up with this "brilliant" idea of using H1B entry date as priority date. So what's the next amendment we want " include the day I first envisioned that I will come to America as the priority date". WE NEED ONE VOICE and we have already been heard so let’s stick to what is practical and push those amendments through.
Besides a lot of people are not sure for a while, if they even want to apply for their GCs or not initially. I personally know of atleast 3 such people. By putting the responsibility of application of the GC into the immigrant's hands, and empowering the applicant to apply for himself/herself, the process becomes a lot more transparent and fair. That way the day the immigrant decides to apply and applies is their PD. That way if someone does not start it as soon as he/she can, it is now up to them. Since the applicant Can apply for himself instead of being sponsored for a GC by an employer, it is no longer employer based, so no one can fault the employer saying that, "They didnt file for me for a year".
In my opinion, just pushing ur PD to the date u entered will not really help a lot. Coz say ur current PD is Feb 2002 EB3 but u had entered in 1998. DOL/UCSIS will say, ok lets do that, and the next day they will say, Now the Retrogression goes back to the year 1996. Is that not possible? Currently what we need is the immigrant to be in total control of his/her GC process. That way the GC can take even 10 years, so long as the applicant and dependants can avail of EADs and Travel permits which are longer than just 1 year increments. If we are thinking long term, then shudnt we be looking at this aspect? The GC itself represents nothing more than total freedom in ur career and it's choices. If we can achieve the same thing without the actual GC, isint that our goal?
I agree. Also, since F1 is not a dual intent visa this will not hold water. Anyways this is a ridiculous demand. We are not the law makers and we should consider ourselves lucky that couple of IV's amendments are in a few of the senator’s bills, though there are no guarantees if they will be included in the final text or let alone be passed. We should only push for what is already include in the 2 bills and not confuse everyone every time one of us comes up with this "brilliant" idea of using H1B entry date as priority date. So what's the next amendment we want " include the day I first envisioned that I will come to America as the priority date". WE NEED ONE VOICE and we have already been heard so let’s stick to what is practical and push those amendments through.
more...
singhsa3
04-30 04:34 PM
I hope u r right man...
For all those who are upset with the House hearing, please take it easy. Please do not expect the hearing to discuss the details of each and every GC applicant's case. The objective of the hearing was to bring the folks involved in visa bulletins and GC processing, and make them all publically say and agree that Lofgren-Sensenbrenner bill will not flood the country with new people on the borders but at the same time since the federal agencies did not do their job properly, so it would make sense to recapture the visa numbers, and that's it.
I think that this objective was achieved pretty handsomely without much opposition. So everybody was on the same page, other than Ranking member King, whose job in such meetings is to oppose whatever the committee chair is proposing. Rep. King did not have much to say as Rep. Sensenbrenner has co-sponsored the bill. Noticeably, Rep. Gutierrez supported the bill, which means Hispanic Caucus may not oppose it either, hopefully. So it was all good.
For all those who are upset with the House hearing, please take it easy. Please do not expect the hearing to discuss the details of each and every GC applicant's case. The objective of the hearing was to bring the folks involved in visa bulletins and GC processing, and make them all publically say and agree that Lofgren-Sensenbrenner bill will not flood the country with new people on the borders but at the same time since the federal agencies did not do their job properly, so it would make sense to recapture the visa numbers, and that's it.
I think that this objective was achieved pretty handsomely without much opposition. So everybody was on the same page, other than Ranking member King, whose job in such meetings is to oppose whatever the committee chair is proposing. Rep. King did not have much to say as Rep. Sensenbrenner has co-sponsored the bill. Noticeably, Rep. Gutierrez supported the bill, which means Hispanic Caucus may not oppose it either, hopefully. So it was all good.
hair love poems for broken hearts.
ashutrip
06-27 05:56 PM
Congrats skillet! Really great news!
Any march approval?
Any march approval?
more...
vaishnavilakshmi
08-07 12:27 PM
July 2nd filers can expect their receipts by Friday(8/10) or Monday(8/13). It will take 3 days for them to just process July 2nd receipts.
Hi,
If this is true ,we are happy.Atleast ,they are going to enter our applications in the system(atleast they are not lost).But,waiting till weekend is quite narrow.What if the application gets rejected and we have no time to refile??Anyways,was the 2nd july filers date a prediction or did u get the info from a reliable source?
Vaishu
Hi,
If this is true ,we are happy.Atleast ,they are going to enter our applications in the system(atleast they are not lost).But,waiting till weekend is quite narrow.What if the application gets rejected and we have no time to refile??Anyways,was the 2nd july filers date a prediction or did u get the info from a reliable source?
Vaishu
hot love poems for friendship.
xyzgc
02-08 11:02 PM
Wow, there you go! How come it becomes 'stupid' when a girl spends husband's money to support her parents?
Did I even say this? What are you saying? Go see a shrink :D
Read first what I said.
Stop sending money to parents and in-laws, if its possible. Otherwise, maintain parity by sending money in small amounts to both parents. Its stupid to say my wife is not working so she has no business to send money to her parents. Its so wrong and I'm surprised folks can think like this. Marriage is about sharing and even a child will tell you that. If the in-laws are any sensible they won't accept gifts from the son-in-law but its for them to decide.And stop receiving any gifts from either sides.
Did I even say this? What are you saying? Go see a shrink :D
Read first what I said.
Stop sending money to parents and in-laws, if its possible. Otherwise, maintain parity by sending money in small amounts to both parents. Its stupid to say my wife is not working so she has no business to send money to her parents. Its so wrong and I'm surprised folks can think like this. Marriage is about sharing and even a child will tell you that. If the in-laws are any sensible they won't accept gifts from the son-in-law but its for them to decide.And stop receiving any gifts from either sides.
more...
house funny poems for friends. funny
dhirajs98
07-14 08:32 PM
My contribution: $20.00
It was easy ... not a big deal guys ... go ahead .. contribute :)
It was easy ... not a big deal guys ... go ahead .. contribute :)
tattoo poems for baby girls. i love u
nlssubbu
07-25 01:29 PM
priti8888
Visa Allotment or Assigning of Visas by USCIS - I cannot digest the assumption that USCIS/DOS/DOL are fools and there is no coordination among them to know who from which country has applied for GC under which category. These Govt. agencies are so efficient that they can even go through these forums and connect IDs here to applications. It is a piece of cake for them to find out the entire background of an applicant as soon as even the LC is filed. They very well know who is stuck with which employer in which state and what stage and to whom they are approving the GCs. If the employers are Americans, they can even call the DOL and ask them to hold the LC approval because they know that once their employees get their GCs they will quit them.
I am not trying to be negative and pessimistic, but please think about the chances of immigrants sueing these Govt. agencies during any of the stages in GC process and winning the lawsuit. And ofcourse, the immigration lawyers are too happy with the retrogressions and the way the immigration system works in this country.
Hi,
This issue was discussed in detail in Ombudsman report in 2006. Please look from page 29 which gives detail description of the inability to give accurate numbers and communicate effectively between USCIS and DOS.
It clearly states that DOS was unable to determin exact numbers and could not co-ordinate with DOL / USCIS regarding cut-off date, by country numbers and also the total number of cards issued resulting in not all allocated numbers are approved as well.
Thanks
Visa Allotment or Assigning of Visas by USCIS - I cannot digest the assumption that USCIS/DOS/DOL are fools and there is no coordination among them to know who from which country has applied for GC under which category. These Govt. agencies are so efficient that they can even go through these forums and connect IDs here to applications. It is a piece of cake for them to find out the entire background of an applicant as soon as even the LC is filed. They very well know who is stuck with which employer in which state and what stage and to whom they are approving the GCs. If the employers are Americans, they can even call the DOL and ask them to hold the LC approval because they know that once their employees get their GCs they will quit them.
I am not trying to be negative and pessimistic, but please think about the chances of immigrants sueing these Govt. agencies during any of the stages in GC process and winning the lawsuit. And ofcourse, the immigration lawyers are too happy with the retrogressions and the way the immigration system works in this country.
Hi,
This issue was discussed in detail in Ombudsman report in 2006. Please look from page 29 which gives detail description of the inability to give accurate numbers and communicate effectively between USCIS and DOS.
It clearly states that DOS was unable to determin exact numbers and could not co-ordinate with DOL / USCIS regarding cut-off date, by country numbers and also the total number of cards issued resulting in not all allocated numbers are approved as well.
Thanks
more...
pictures rhyming poems for haters.
swo
07-21 04:05 AM
Kindly note yourself John, that using fonts like this are obnoxious. Also note that in America we write it like this: 240,000. Not 2,40,000. I'm not sure why I keep seeing this here. Is this some kind of Indian thing?
Kindly note,
This particular Cornyn amendment (S.Amdt. 2339) offered to attach to H.R. 2669 (College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 ), but the motion was failed due to lack of 5 votes.(55 YEAS and 40 NAYs. Require 3/5 majority) HR.2669 is passed by both Senate and house and sent for conference to resolve the difference between house and senate versions and president is sure to sign the bill and thus would become the law in another few days. This amendment does not have anything to do with defence bill, which itself is a failed bill or with SKILL bill. Following is the actions taken by congress of HR 2669.
IF THE AMENDMENT HAD PASSED WE WOULD HAVE GOT ATLEAST 2,40,000 RECAPTURED, UNUSED VISAS OF PREVIOUS YEARS IN ANOTHER FEW DAYS.
H.R.2669
Title: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
Sponsor: Rep Miller, George [CA-7] (introduced 6/12/2007) Cosponsors (31)
Related Bills: H.RES.531
Latest Major Action: 7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions. Status: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
House Reports: 110-210
MAJOR ACTIONS:
6/12/2007 Introduced in House
6/25/2007 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Labor. H. Rept. 110-210.
7/11/2007 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 273 - 149 (Roll no. 613).
7/20/2007 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 78 - 18. Record Vote Number: 272.
7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
Kindly note,
This particular Cornyn amendment (S.Amdt. 2339) offered to attach to H.R. 2669 (College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 ), but the motion was failed due to lack of 5 votes.(55 YEAS and 40 NAYs. Require 3/5 majority) HR.2669 is passed by both Senate and house and sent for conference to resolve the difference between house and senate versions and president is sure to sign the bill and thus would become the law in another few days. This amendment does not have anything to do with defence bill, which itself is a failed bill or with SKILL bill. Following is the actions taken by congress of HR 2669.
IF THE AMENDMENT HAD PASSED WE WOULD HAVE GOT ATLEAST 2,40,000 RECAPTURED, UNUSED VISAS OF PREVIOUS YEARS IN ANOTHER FEW DAYS.
H.R.2669
Title: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
Sponsor: Rep Miller, George [CA-7] (introduced 6/12/2007) Cosponsors (31)
Related Bills: H.RES.531
Latest Major Action: 7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions. Status: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
House Reports: 110-210
MAJOR ACTIONS:
6/12/2007 Introduced in House
6/25/2007 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Labor. H. Rept. 110-210.
7/11/2007 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 273 - 149 (Roll no. 613).
7/20/2007 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 78 - 18. Record Vote Number: 272.
7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
dresses funny poems for kids. funny
snathan
02-13 10:14 PM
Why are you not posting other messages from me, kiddo. MS + 1 yr. LOL. What an experienced and talented guy :)
I dont need your certificate junk...IV could not achive anything because of free loaders like you. what a piece of junk.
Every one in this forum knows your talent. Are you working in form
I dont need your certificate junk...IV could not achive anything because of free loaders like you. what a piece of junk.
Every one in this forum knows your talent. Are you working in form
more...
makeup friendship poems for est
JazzByTheBay
09-10 08:51 PM
It was naive for everyone, including those with PDs in 2006/2007 (and - here's the funny part.. even those who recently filed... ) to suddenly expect the tap to be flowing with full force and everyone's AOS being approved magically in the months of August and September 2008.
We have historical data about the USCIS' efficiencies - but for those who believed (and I'm not excluding myself here... ), it was probably a welcome break, full of hope. It was great while it lasted.
In the process, we've lost focus on the bigger goals - HR 5882 being one of them.
When things were "CURRENT", all we could think of was tracking LUDs and claiming superiority based on an earlier PD or a "U.S. Masters... ".
Again, it's time to take a hard look at past successes and failures, question why we're still in this country, and if you have no doubts about that - get back to the business of pushing for legislation, imho.
jazz
Please realize that HR 5882 is the only hope for now. I had mentioned in my previous posts that EB 2 I/C will retrogress in Oct (many said i was just saying this because i was EB3). This is not the time to be complacent or hope that USCIS will start dishing out visas and clear the backlogs. Help in working towards getting something done with the bills, the window of opportunity is very short.
We have historical data about the USCIS' efficiencies - but for those who believed (and I'm not excluding myself here... ), it was probably a welcome break, full of hope. It was great while it lasted.
In the process, we've lost focus on the bigger goals - HR 5882 being one of them.
When things were "CURRENT", all we could think of was tracking LUDs and claiming superiority based on an earlier PD or a "U.S. Masters... ".
Again, it's time to take a hard look at past successes and failures, question why we're still in this country, and if you have no doubts about that - get back to the business of pushing for legislation, imho.
jazz
Please realize that HR 5882 is the only hope for now. I had mentioned in my previous posts that EB 2 I/C will retrogress in Oct (many said i was just saying this because i was EB3). This is not the time to be complacent or hope that USCIS will start dishing out visas and clear the backlogs. Help in working towards getting something done with the bills, the window of opportunity is very short.
girlfriend heartbroken poems for him.
zoozee
07-21 12:25 PM
Grim EAD situtation , Oh my god!
Guys,
The calculations below is not to scare anyone but it may very well a reality. Based on the assumptions below, some people may have to wait up to 20 months to get a EAD card: Ouch!
Hello,
A kind request - can someone remove this kinda thread with heavy calculation from our senior member - Sorry to say but this is definitely not a good time to start this kinda discussion especially that we are filling our docs and where so many of us are stuck in our employers dealing with us who has not filled our EAD/AP.
Please remove this thread .
Regards,
Zee.
A Total I-485 Applicants: 750000 Applicants
B Each EAD processing time: 5 Minutes
C Total processing hrs: 62500 Hours
(Calculations: AxB/60)
D Daily productive Hours: 5 Hours
(It is a government body!)
E Total Man Days (Business Days): 12500 Man Days
(Calculations: C/D)
F EAD Workforce: 30 People
G Total Business Days: 417 Days
(Calculations: E/F)
H Average Business Days in a month: 21 Days
I Total Clearing Time : 20 Months
(Calculations: G/I)
Guys,
The calculations below is not to scare anyone but it may very well a reality. Based on the assumptions below, some people may have to wait up to 20 months to get a EAD card: Ouch!
Hello,
A kind request - can someone remove this kinda thread with heavy calculation from our senior member - Sorry to say but this is definitely not a good time to start this kinda discussion especially that we are filling our docs and where so many of us are stuck in our employers dealing with us who has not filled our EAD/AP.
Please remove this thread .
Regards,
Zee.
A Total I-485 Applicants: 750000 Applicants
B Each EAD processing time: 5 Minutes
C Total processing hrs: 62500 Hours
(Calculations: AxB/60)
D Daily productive Hours: 5 Hours
(It is a government body!)
E Total Man Days (Business Days): 12500 Man Days
(Calculations: C/D)
F EAD Workforce: 30 People
G Total Business Days: 417 Days
(Calculations: E/F)
H Average Business Days in a month: 21 Days
I Total Clearing Time : 20 Months
(Calculations: G/I)
hairstyles birthday poems for mothers.
bindas74
11-29 09:49 PM
Hi All,
This is a nice thread. Found all the answers I was looking for. Still some lingering doubts in my head::)))
So, has anyone started working on EAD for their/or spouse's LLC?
Why cant I work on my H1B instead( for my spouse's company )? That would take away some risk. Wouldnt it??
Do we need to submit any tax docs( for the new company I would be moving to) when we apply for the AC21 or at any later stage??
Can someone please answer?
-Thanks in advance
This is a nice thread. Found all the answers I was looking for. Still some lingering doubts in my head::)))
So, has anyone started working on EAD for their/or spouse's LLC?
Why cant I work on my H1B instead( for my spouse's company )? That would take away some risk. Wouldnt it??
Do we need to submit any tax docs( for the new company I would be moving to) when we apply for the AC21 or at any later stage??
Can someone please answer?
-Thanks in advance
skillet
06-22 11:27 AM
I am still hopeful that they will start processing quickly.. If not as everyone indicated take a chill pill!!!:)
little_willy
09-12 11:41 PM
Here are some fax numbers, again collected from various IV forums.
From http://www.edgar.k12.wi.us/cloverbelt/medialist.htm
Eau Claire Leader-Telegram 1-715-858-7308
Wausau Daily Herald 1-715-848-9361
Chippewa Herald Telegram 1-715-723-9644
Marshfield News Herald 1-715-387-4175
Wisconsin Rapids Tribune 1-715-848-9361
St. Point Journal 1-715-344-7229
Medford Star News 1-715-748-2699
TV 7 � Wausau 1-715-842-0879
TV 9 � Wausau 1-715-848-0195
TV 13 � Eau Claire 1-715-832-0246
TV 18 � Eau Claire 1-715-831-1859
From http://www.nynjtc.org/issues/natmedia.html
New York Times: FAX: 212.556.7614
Washington Post: FAX: 310.277.3704
Time Magazine: FAX: 212.522.1530
Newsweek: FAX: 212.445.4120
USA Today: FAX: 703.247.3108
Wall Street Journal: FAX: 202.862.9266
NPR: FAX: 202.414.3329
AP: FAX: 202.776.9570
CNN: FAX: 404.681.3578
Chicago Tribune: FAX: 202.824.8302
Los Angeles Times: FAX: 213.237.7968
San Francisco Chronicle: email: letters@sfchronicle.com
San Diego Union: FAX: 619.293.1440
Sacramento Bee: FAX: 916.321.1196
Oakland Tribune: FAX: 510.208.6477
Long Beach Press Telegram: FAX: 562.499.1277
Monterey County Herald: FAX: 831.372.8401
___________________________________
Here is the list copied from http://www.patrickcrusade.org/Fax.html:
ABC WASHINGTON DC 202-887-7684
ABC 20/20 NEW YORK NY 212-456-2969
ABC NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-456-4968
ABC TV LOS ANGELES CA 213-557-5210
ABC TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-954-7633
ABC WORLD NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-456-4968
AP LOS ANGELES CA 213-748-1200
AP SAN DIEGO CA 619-291-2098
AP WASHINGTON DC 202-828-6422
AP (BROADCAST) WASHINGTON DC 202-955-7367
ASSOCIATED PRESS BOSTON MA 617-338-8125
ASSOCIATED PRESS LOS ANGELES CA 213-748-9836
ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOENIX AZ 602-254-9573
ASSOCIATED PRESS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-552-9430
ASSOCIATED PRESS MN MINNEAPOLIS MN 612-332-4245
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3183
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3192
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3490
BOSTON GLOBE NEWSRM BOSTON MA 617-929-3186
BOSTON HERALD BOSTON MA 617-426-1865
BOSTON HERALD BOSTON MA 617-542-1315
C-SPAN WASHINGTON DC 202-737-6226
CBS NEW YORK NY 212-975-1519
CBS WASHINGTON DC 202-659-2586
CBS (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 202-659-5578
CBS EVE NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-975-2115
CBS MORNING WASHINGTON DC 202-331-1765
CBS NEWS LOS ANGELES CA 213-651-0285
CBS NEWS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-362-7417
CBS NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-975-1519
CBS TV LOS ANGELES CA 213-651-0321
CBS TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-362-7417
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES CHICAGO IL 312-321-3084
CHICAGO TRIBUNE CHICAGO IL 312-222-3143
CHRISTIAN SCI. MON. BOSTON MA 617-450-2317
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MO BOSTON MA 617-289-5352
CNBC HOLLYWOOD CA 213-465-1034
CNN LOS ANGELES CA 213-460-5081
CNN SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-398-4049
CNN PRESIDENT ATLANTA GA 404-827-1575
FORBES LOS ANGELES CA 213-478-8437
GANNETT WASHINGTON DC 202-243-0190
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE SACRAMENTO CA 916-446-7326
LOS ANGELES TIMES CHATSWORTH CA 818-772-3338
LOS ANGELES TIMES COSTA MESA CA 714-966-7711
LOS ANGELES TIMES LOS ANGELES CA 213-237-4712
LOS ANGELES TIMES SACRAMENTO CA 916-322-2422
LOS ANGELES TIMES VENTURA CA 805-658-5547
NBC WASHINGTON DC 202-362-2009
NBC (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 703-685-2197
NBC NEWS BURBANK CA 818-840-4275
NBC NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-956-2140
NBC NEWS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-441-2823
NBC NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-315-4037
NBC TV LOS ANGELES CA 818-840-4275
NBC TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-441-2823
NEW YORK POST NEW YORK NY 212-732-4241
NEW YORK TIMES NEW YORK NY 212-556-4603
NEWSWEEK LOS ANGELES CA 213-444-5287
NEWSWEEK NEW YORK NY 212-421-4993
NEWSWEEK SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-788-4437
NEWSWEEK WASHINGTON DC 202-783-6512
NPRRADIO SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-553-2241
NY TIMES NEW YORK NY 212-556-4603
NY TIMES SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-421-2684
NY TIMES WASHINGTON DC 202-862-0340
REUTERS LOS ANGELES CA 213-622-0056
REUTERS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-986-5147
REUTERS WASHINGTON DC 202-898-8383
TIME LOS ANGELES CA 213-824-7205
TIME SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-434-5209
TIME WASHINGTON DC 202-463-5005
TIME MAGAZINE NEW YORK NY 212-522-0451
UPI BOSTON MA 617-338-9774
UPI LOS ANGELES CA 213-620-1237
UPI SEATTLE WA 206-283-0408
UPI WASHINGTON DC 202-789-2362
UPI (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 202-842-3625
US NEWS & WORLD REPORT WASHINGTON DC 202-955-2713
USA RADIO NETWORK DALLAS TX 214-243-3489
USA TODAY WASHINGTON DC 202-276-5527
WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON DC 202-862-9266
WALL STREET JOURNAL SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-391-4534
WALL STREET JOURNAL LOS ANGELES CA 213-658-3828
WALL STREET JOURNAL NEW YORK NY 212-416-2658
WALL STREET JOURNAL SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-391-4534
WASHINGTON POST WASHINGTON DC 202-334-4480
Here is the list copied from http://www.mothersalert.org/mediafax.html
CNN: 404-681-3578
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: 773-702-0725
New York Times: 212-556-7306
Washington Post: 202-496-3936
LA Times: 213-237-4712
CBS-TV Nightly News: 212-975-1893
60 Minutes: 212-975-2019
ABC Nightly News: 212-456-3720
UPI: 202-898-8057
AP: 212-621-7529
AFP [Agences France Presse]: 202-414-0524
Time Magazine: 212-522-0323
Newsweek Magazine: 212-212-445-5844
US News & World Report: 212-916-7400 or 212-716-6800 -- May or May Not Still Be Working
USA Today: 212-371-0241
CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]: 416-205-7459
Australian Broadcasting Corp.: 202-626-5188
Greenpeace USA: 202-462-4507
All International Greenpeace Fax#s Should be Accessable through: http://www.greenpeace.org
Center For Defense Information: 202-462-4559
Jim Hightower Show: 512-478-8536
Pacifica Radio's "Democracy Now": 212-747-1698 and 202-588-0896
Boston Globe: 617-929-2019
Der Speigel: 212-302-6258
Reuters: 202-898-8401
PBS' "Frontline: 617-254-0243
Penthouse Magazine:212-702-6279
Ralph Nader: 202-234-5176
Las Vegas Sun: 702-383-7264
NPR's "Talk of the Nation": 202-414-3329
Pacifica Radio, KPFK: 818-763-7526
Pacifica Radio, WPFW: 202-588-0561
Pacifica Radio, KPFT: 713-526-5750
Wall Street Journal: 212-416-2653
Christian Science Monitor: 212-764-9648
From http://www.edgar.k12.wi.us/cloverbelt/medialist.htm
Eau Claire Leader-Telegram 1-715-858-7308
Wausau Daily Herald 1-715-848-9361
Chippewa Herald Telegram 1-715-723-9644
Marshfield News Herald 1-715-387-4175
Wisconsin Rapids Tribune 1-715-848-9361
St. Point Journal 1-715-344-7229
Medford Star News 1-715-748-2699
TV 7 � Wausau 1-715-842-0879
TV 9 � Wausau 1-715-848-0195
TV 13 � Eau Claire 1-715-832-0246
TV 18 � Eau Claire 1-715-831-1859
From http://www.nynjtc.org/issues/natmedia.html
New York Times: FAX: 212.556.7614
Washington Post: FAX: 310.277.3704
Time Magazine: FAX: 212.522.1530
Newsweek: FAX: 212.445.4120
USA Today: FAX: 703.247.3108
Wall Street Journal: FAX: 202.862.9266
NPR: FAX: 202.414.3329
AP: FAX: 202.776.9570
CNN: FAX: 404.681.3578
Chicago Tribune: FAX: 202.824.8302
Los Angeles Times: FAX: 213.237.7968
San Francisco Chronicle: email: letters@sfchronicle.com
San Diego Union: FAX: 619.293.1440
Sacramento Bee: FAX: 916.321.1196
Oakland Tribune: FAX: 510.208.6477
Long Beach Press Telegram: FAX: 562.499.1277
Monterey County Herald: FAX: 831.372.8401
___________________________________
Here is the list copied from http://www.patrickcrusade.org/Fax.html:
ABC WASHINGTON DC 202-887-7684
ABC 20/20 NEW YORK NY 212-456-2969
ABC NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-456-4968
ABC TV LOS ANGELES CA 213-557-5210
ABC TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-954-7633
ABC WORLD NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-456-4968
AP LOS ANGELES CA 213-748-1200
AP SAN DIEGO CA 619-291-2098
AP WASHINGTON DC 202-828-6422
AP (BROADCAST) WASHINGTON DC 202-955-7367
ASSOCIATED PRESS BOSTON MA 617-338-8125
ASSOCIATED PRESS LOS ANGELES CA 213-748-9836
ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOENIX AZ 602-254-9573
ASSOCIATED PRESS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-552-9430
ASSOCIATED PRESS MN MINNEAPOLIS MN 612-332-4245
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3183
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3192
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3490
BOSTON GLOBE NEWSRM BOSTON MA 617-929-3186
BOSTON HERALD BOSTON MA 617-426-1865
BOSTON HERALD BOSTON MA 617-542-1315
C-SPAN WASHINGTON DC 202-737-6226
CBS NEW YORK NY 212-975-1519
CBS WASHINGTON DC 202-659-2586
CBS (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 202-659-5578
CBS EVE NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-975-2115
CBS MORNING WASHINGTON DC 202-331-1765
CBS NEWS LOS ANGELES CA 213-651-0285
CBS NEWS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-362-7417
CBS NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-975-1519
CBS TV LOS ANGELES CA 213-651-0321
CBS TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-362-7417
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES CHICAGO IL 312-321-3084
CHICAGO TRIBUNE CHICAGO IL 312-222-3143
CHRISTIAN SCI. MON. BOSTON MA 617-450-2317
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MO BOSTON MA 617-289-5352
CNBC HOLLYWOOD CA 213-465-1034
CNN LOS ANGELES CA 213-460-5081
CNN SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-398-4049
CNN PRESIDENT ATLANTA GA 404-827-1575
FORBES LOS ANGELES CA 213-478-8437
GANNETT WASHINGTON DC 202-243-0190
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE SACRAMENTO CA 916-446-7326
LOS ANGELES TIMES CHATSWORTH CA 818-772-3338
LOS ANGELES TIMES COSTA MESA CA 714-966-7711
LOS ANGELES TIMES LOS ANGELES CA 213-237-4712
LOS ANGELES TIMES SACRAMENTO CA 916-322-2422
LOS ANGELES TIMES VENTURA CA 805-658-5547
NBC WASHINGTON DC 202-362-2009
NBC (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 703-685-2197
NBC NEWS BURBANK CA 818-840-4275
NBC NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-956-2140
NBC NEWS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-441-2823
NBC NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-315-4037
NBC TV LOS ANGELES CA 818-840-4275
NBC TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-441-2823
NEW YORK POST NEW YORK NY 212-732-4241
NEW YORK TIMES NEW YORK NY 212-556-4603
NEWSWEEK LOS ANGELES CA 213-444-5287
NEWSWEEK NEW YORK NY 212-421-4993
NEWSWEEK SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-788-4437
NEWSWEEK WASHINGTON DC 202-783-6512
NPRRADIO SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-553-2241
NY TIMES NEW YORK NY 212-556-4603
NY TIMES SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-421-2684
NY TIMES WASHINGTON DC 202-862-0340
REUTERS LOS ANGELES CA 213-622-0056
REUTERS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-986-5147
REUTERS WASHINGTON DC 202-898-8383
TIME LOS ANGELES CA 213-824-7205
TIME SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-434-5209
TIME WASHINGTON DC 202-463-5005
TIME MAGAZINE NEW YORK NY 212-522-0451
UPI BOSTON MA 617-338-9774
UPI LOS ANGELES CA 213-620-1237
UPI SEATTLE WA 206-283-0408
UPI WASHINGTON DC 202-789-2362
UPI (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 202-842-3625
US NEWS & WORLD REPORT WASHINGTON DC 202-955-2713
USA RADIO NETWORK DALLAS TX 214-243-3489
USA TODAY WASHINGTON DC 202-276-5527
WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON DC 202-862-9266
WALL STREET JOURNAL SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-391-4534
WALL STREET JOURNAL LOS ANGELES CA 213-658-3828
WALL STREET JOURNAL NEW YORK NY 212-416-2658
WALL STREET JOURNAL SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-391-4534
WASHINGTON POST WASHINGTON DC 202-334-4480
Here is the list copied from http://www.mothersalert.org/mediafax.html
CNN: 404-681-3578
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: 773-702-0725
New York Times: 212-556-7306
Washington Post: 202-496-3936
LA Times: 213-237-4712
CBS-TV Nightly News: 212-975-1893
60 Minutes: 212-975-2019
ABC Nightly News: 212-456-3720
UPI: 202-898-8057
AP: 212-621-7529
AFP [Agences France Presse]: 202-414-0524
Time Magazine: 212-522-0323
Newsweek Magazine: 212-212-445-5844
US News & World Report: 212-916-7400 or 212-716-6800 -- May or May Not Still Be Working
USA Today: 212-371-0241
CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]: 416-205-7459
Australian Broadcasting Corp.: 202-626-5188
Greenpeace USA: 202-462-4507
All International Greenpeace Fax#s Should be Accessable through: http://www.greenpeace.org
Center For Defense Information: 202-462-4559
Jim Hightower Show: 512-478-8536
Pacifica Radio's "Democracy Now": 212-747-1698 and 202-588-0896
Boston Globe: 617-929-2019
Der Speigel: 212-302-6258
Reuters: 202-898-8401
PBS' "Frontline: 617-254-0243
Penthouse Magazine:212-702-6279
Ralph Nader: 202-234-5176
Las Vegas Sun: 702-383-7264
NPR's "Talk of the Nation": 202-414-3329
Pacifica Radio, KPFK: 818-763-7526
Pacifica Radio, WPFW: 202-588-0561
Pacifica Radio, KPFT: 713-526-5750
Wall Street Journal: 212-416-2653
Christian Science Monitor: 212-764-9648
No comments:
Post a Comment