kilubilu46
08-06 10:07 AM
Could not attend the coffee appt. Hopefully will be able to attend the lunch.
wallpaper justin bieber ride cover.
tnite
08-15 04:45 PM
On exploring this topic further, I found that, at times, DOL conducts an audit to check if the employer paid the proffered wage to the beneficiary after GC approval. In case of a violation, DOL bans the employer from processing further H1�s or GC�s.
On rare occasions, USCIS revokes previously approved GC�s in case of fraud.
Also during naturalization, USCIS checks the duration of employment with the GC position after I-485 approval. Naturalization might be denied if the duration of employment is very short.
Two of my friends got a letter from DOL to answer a questionnaire about the pay, paystub gaps and all those stuff.They work for different companies.
DOL is cranking up the pressure
On rare occasions, USCIS revokes previously approved GC�s in case of fraud.
Also during naturalization, USCIS checks the duration of employment with the GC position after I-485 approval. Naturalization might be denied if the duration of employment is very short.
Two of my friends got a letter from DOL to answer a questionnaire about the pay, paystub gaps and all those stuff.They work for different companies.
DOL is cranking up the pressure
JK747
07-16 09:25 AM
That does not make sense! Peaople on H4 are not allowed to work, period! Thats how the Visa category is defined. Now, how will one on H4 to work? Enter EAD! So, while EAD allows him/her to work, it changes the Visa status (be it H1 or H4) to AOS. It does not matter if you travel outside or not.
I do not know how you extended your spouse's H4 with the help of the attorney. It is an error on USCIS part, may be because you (or your spouse's employer) have not notified the USCIS about your spouse using the EAD for employment.
Micofrost is CORRECT. My wife is on H4 and working on EAD currently. My lawyer had also confirmed that working on EAD does not affect H4 status.
I do not know how you extended your spouse's H4 with the help of the attorney. It is an error on USCIS part, may be because you (or your spouse's employer) have not notified the USCIS about your spouse using the EAD for employment.
Micofrost is CORRECT. My wife is on H4 and working on EAD currently. My lawyer had also confirmed that working on EAD does not affect H4 status.
2011 justin bieber ride cover.
gugan
12-13 09:39 AM
Hi, I am planning to apply for PIO card for my daughter , can you please tell me what are all the documents I need to get notarized ?
Thanks
Thanks
more...
surabhi
06-19 10:52 AM
I-485 reciepts are not part of required supporting documentation.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-765instr.pdf
see page 6:
This is for paper filing.
Need front and back of EAD card
2 photos
$340 check or None as applicable
i-485 receipt notices are required only for first time filers not filing along with I485.
Sorry to have jumped the gun. I-485 receipt is needed.
"All applications must be filed with the documents required
below, in addition to the particular evidence required for the
category listed in "Who May File This Form I-765" with fee,
if required."
On Page 4 in the Instructions doucment refers to the particular evidence
A. Adjustment Applicant--(c)(9). File your EAD
application with a copy of the receipt notice or other
evidence that your Form I-485, Application for
Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, is pending.
You may file Form I-765 together with your Form
I-485.
Since it talks about other evidence, you can use FP notices.
The other requirements are photos, check for $340 if applicable, front and back of EAD card.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-765instr.pdf
see page 6:
This is for paper filing.
Need front and back of EAD card
2 photos
$340 check or None as applicable
i-485 receipt notices are required only for first time filers not filing along with I485.
Sorry to have jumped the gun. I-485 receipt is needed.
"All applications must be filed with the documents required
below, in addition to the particular evidence required for the
category listed in "Who May File This Form I-765" with fee,
if required."
On Page 4 in the Instructions doucment refers to the particular evidence
A. Adjustment Applicant--(c)(9). File your EAD
application with a copy of the receipt notice or other
evidence that your Form I-485, Application for
Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, is pending.
You may file Form I-765 together with your Form
I-485.
Since it talks about other evidence, you can use FP notices.
The other requirements are photos, check for $340 if applicable, front and back of EAD card.
lagsam
04-10 11:20 PM
Hi I am planning for self filing EAD. I want to do e-file, but I heard that that if you are e-filing you need to go for finger printing. At the same time I also heard that no matter whether you go for e-filing or sending application to USCIS, if your finger printing is expired than you may need to go for the finger printing. Please suggest the best way to file for the EAD(I-765 form).
Als one more thing "Which USCIS Office?" section which date I need to put there.
I sent mine on April 5th and I sent it to the filing address in Arizona because I live in Colorado. Please check the new filing address. Good luck.
Als one more thing "Which USCIS Office?" section which date I need to put there.
I sent mine on April 5th and I sent it to the filing address in Arizona because I live in Colorado. Please check the new filing address. Good luck.
more...
speddi
10-05 10:43 AM
Hi,
I am a July 2nd filer and I got my receipt notices, EADs and completed the FP too. I didnt get the AP yet but my wife's AP shows as approved. When I talked to an IO couple of days ago, she said my AP is approved but they didnt update the website. I called USCIS Customer Service today 3 to 4 (it seems they keep track of it) times and each gave me a different information. Sometimes they said they have Aug 17th as the receipt date but my receipt date is July 2nd(on the RN) and Aug 20th is the ND. So, I dont know what this Aug 17th date is and they say that is what they have in their systems as received date and I am still in the processing time. I am confused. According to my attorney, my wife's AP shudnt have been approved without my AP getting approved since I am the primary applicant.
Do I need to worry or just wait some more days? I am mainly worried that they have the wrong date as receipt date in their system and it might affect on future processing.
Thank you for any kind of input.
I am a July 2nd filer and I got my receipt notices, EADs and completed the FP too. I didnt get the AP yet but my wife's AP shows as approved. When I talked to an IO couple of days ago, she said my AP is approved but they didnt update the website. I called USCIS Customer Service today 3 to 4 (it seems they keep track of it) times and each gave me a different information. Sometimes they said they have Aug 17th as the receipt date but my receipt date is July 2nd(on the RN) and Aug 20th is the ND. So, I dont know what this Aug 17th date is and they say that is what they have in their systems as received date and I am still in the processing time. I am confused. According to my attorney, my wife's AP shudnt have been approved without my AP getting approved since I am the primary applicant.
Do I need to worry or just wait some more days? I am mainly worried that they have the wrong date as receipt date in their system and it might affect on future processing.
Thank you for any kind of input.
2010 justin bieber ride cover.
arthi123
11-08 09:21 AM
hello,
I am trying to book an appointment for h1b visa stamping at the Chennai Us consulate for Nov 29th but I see no dates available for Nov 2010 for Chennai.
Ony calcutta dates are available.
Can I book an emergency appointment in this situation?
I have been on h1 for the past 3 years.First came to US in 2004.Visa expired in 2006.
Extended h1b here in USA..Now going to India for the first time after visa expiry.
Also, for the stamping, should i carry all old LCA's or just the latest one?
Thanks,
arthi
I am trying to book an appointment for h1b visa stamping at the Chennai Us consulate for Nov 29th but I see no dates available for Nov 2010 for Chennai.
Ony calcutta dates are available.
Can I book an emergency appointment in this situation?
I have been on h1 for the past 3 years.First came to US in 2004.Visa expired in 2006.
Extended h1b here in USA..Now going to India for the first time after visa expiry.
Also, for the stamping, should i carry all old LCA's or just the latest one?
Thanks,
arthi
more...
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
hair Justin Bieber. A new song from
jagran
07-31 03:11 PM
From where you got this fact? If this is the fact then PD won't be hovering in 2001 since last 5 years. In those days, PD for EB3 was always current so every body applied in EB3.
The Sept bulletin will be
EB2I - Dec 03
EB3I - U
The Sept bulletin will be
EB2I - Dec 03
EB3I - U
more...
martinvisalaw
02-23 06:10 PM
so assuming all goes well i would be protected from deportation from the time of filing until decisions are made?
No necessarily protected. Anyone who overstays their I-94 is removable (deportable). However, some people can contest that in removal proceedings. One basis to contest a removal order is because the foreign national is married to a US citizen and/or has an Adjustment of Status pending.
The problem with VWP entrants is that they sign away their rights to contest a removal order, even if married to a US citizen (unless they claim asylum). Worse - they can be removed without a hearing in immigration court, simply by an order of the local District Director. In theory, a VWP entrant who overstayed could file for permanent residence and be issued a removal order and put in detention when s/he turned up for the marriage interview at the District Office.
I don't mean to terrify you, and most district offices do approve cases filed by VWP entrants, but please check with a local attorney before filing anything.
__________________
No necessarily protected. Anyone who overstays their I-94 is removable (deportable). However, some people can contest that in removal proceedings. One basis to contest a removal order is because the foreign national is married to a US citizen and/or has an Adjustment of Status pending.
The problem with VWP entrants is that they sign away their rights to contest a removal order, even if married to a US citizen (unless they claim asylum). Worse - they can be removed without a hearing in immigration court, simply by an order of the local District Director. In theory, a VWP entrant who overstayed could file for permanent residence and be issued a removal order and put in detention when s/he turned up for the marriage interview at the District Office.
I don't mean to terrify you, and most district offices do approve cases filed by VWP entrants, but please check with a local attorney before filing anything.
__________________
hot hair justin bieber album
nareshdin
04-08 02:52 PM
Hi,
Have you hear anything from USCIS after you sent your FedEx reciepts?
I am also in the similar kind of situation.
I had applied for H1 extension in month of Jan 2009, and got RFE in the month of Feb,
later my employer sent the required documents asked by USCIS.
On Apr 3, H1 B extension status has been changed to "Denial Notification Sent",
and yet to know the reason for Denial.
My present H1 is valid till mid of next month. Now my employer is re applying for new extension as my I-94 valid for another one month. Can any one suggest if you see any risk if same employer re applies for extension again? If so let me know any other options.
Thanks..
Have you hear anything from USCIS after you sent your FedEx reciepts?
I am also in the similar kind of situation.
I had applied for H1 extension in month of Jan 2009, and got RFE in the month of Feb,
later my employer sent the required documents asked by USCIS.
On Apr 3, H1 B extension status has been changed to "Denial Notification Sent",
and yet to know the reason for Denial.
My present H1 is valid till mid of next month. Now my employer is re applying for new extension as my I-94 valid for another one month. Can any one suggest if you see any risk if same employer re applies for extension again? If so let me know any other options.
Thanks..
more...
house justin bieber ride album.
GC4US
07-18 04:47 PM
Could somebody explain to me, please, how is it working with the receipt date?
I will be going to my home country on July 21st and coming back on August 15th, 11:00 PM.......
.....my question is: if my lawyer will send the I-485 package on August 15, at 4 PM.....( and I arrive in U.S on August 15 but at 11:00 PM)...the package hits the Uscis on August 16......is it ok? when Uscis sees that I'm physically in U.S?......is it the date when the package hits Uscis or the date when the package was sent by the lawyer......what is the postal mark that Uscis takes into consideration?: the date when Fedex is sending the package( exact date of delivery) OR the date the package arrives at Uscis mailroom?
OR ...Uscis will look at the I-94( when I'm coming back the officer at the port of entry will give me a new I-94) and Uscis will see that I arrived on August 15, at 11:00 PM?
Could someone please clarify this as depending on this I have to change the schedule of my plane flight.
I would really appreciate this.
Thank you in advance!
I will be going to my home country on July 21st and coming back on August 15th, 11:00 PM.......
.....my question is: if my lawyer will send the I-485 package on August 15, at 4 PM.....( and I arrive in U.S on August 15 but at 11:00 PM)...the package hits the Uscis on August 16......is it ok? when Uscis sees that I'm physically in U.S?......is it the date when the package hits Uscis or the date when the package was sent by the lawyer......what is the postal mark that Uscis takes into consideration?: the date when Fedex is sending the package( exact date of delivery) OR the date the package arrives at Uscis mailroom?
OR ...Uscis will look at the I-94( when I'm coming back the officer at the port of entry will give me a new I-94) and Uscis will see that I arrived on August 15, at 11:00 PM?
Could someone please clarify this as depending on this I have to change the schedule of my plane flight.
I would really appreciate this.
Thank you in advance!
tattoo Justin Bieber - My Worlds
ragz4u
05-03 11:49 AM
We have already sent the reporter an email on behalf of IV.
And, also please note that IV does not have anything against Illegal aliens. We are sympathetic to their cause but have no opinion regarding amnesty for illegal aliens
If someone wants to go to this protest/write to the reporter, do so in individual capacity please (do not claim to represent IV).
And, also please note that IV does not have anything against Illegal aliens. We are sympathetic to their cause but have no opinion regarding amnesty for illegal aliens
If someone wants to go to this protest/write to the reporter, do so in individual capacity please (do not claim to represent IV).
more...
pictures justin bieber lyrics pray.
cahimmihelp
07-15 12:56 PM
Hi,
This is my second effort to get the answer. There are so many posts on this kind of topics but I am not getting any clear answer. I would appreciate if someone can throw the light on this topic.:confused:
I am working with a consulting company and my company filed for my GC in 2009 (PD is 25-Feb-2009). I received my I-140 approval on 28-Feb-2010. Now the client where I am working, has offered my a fulltime job and GC processing. I have received mutual consent from my current company for any legal issues. Now, if I join the new company and file my GC from there, can I port my Priority date for the new processing? Also, what should be the earliest joining date? What all other precautions should I take while filing GC with the new company?
I received the offer on 07/09 and have to give my decision by 07/15. I would appreciate if anyone can help. I got one day extension in deadline. Please answer someone...
Thanks a lot,
CAH
This is my second effort to get the answer. There are so many posts on this kind of topics but I am not getting any clear answer. I would appreciate if someone can throw the light on this topic.:confused:
I am working with a consulting company and my company filed for my GC in 2009 (PD is 25-Feb-2009). I received my I-140 approval on 28-Feb-2010. Now the client where I am working, has offered my a fulltime job and GC processing. I have received mutual consent from my current company for any legal issues. Now, if I join the new company and file my GC from there, can I port my Priority date for the new processing? Also, what should be the earliest joining date? What all other precautions should I take while filing GC with the new company?
I received the offer on 07/09 and have to give my decision by 07/15. I would appreciate if anyone can help. I got one day extension in deadline. Please answer someone...
Thanks a lot,
CAH
dresses justin bieber pray album
suriajay12
05-13 07:11 AM
We're all impacted by retrogression and each person comes up with different reasons such as labor substitution or porting from EB3 to EB2 etc. I think that the unemployment rate is a key factor that might be influencing the movement of visa dates. With a double digit unemployment rate for US workers, why will the government want to give green cards to foreign workers.
Even if you get the green card, you could lose your job and apply for unemployment benefits. The US government does not want increase in the numbers of those claiming unemployment benefits or welfare programs. These benefits are not available to workers on temporary visas.Social security and medicare are also going to be tapped out within the next 10-20 years. These factors could have made them influence the USCIS/DOS to roll the dates back and make it U for all EB3 and to past 2000 for EB2 India. EB2 is current for other countries due to low demand.
Until the unemployment rate falls to reasonably low (in their view) levels, they have no inclination to act on immigration reform.
Notwithstanding the DOS explanation for the retrogression, there might be political factors in the background that are not made public.How do we know that this wasn't happening behind the scenes?
Its not unemployment, but swine flu thats responsible for this retrogression mess. They could imagine this flu will strike in 2009 and hence wanted to discourage people to come to US or to adjust status here. They know immigrants travel more than citizens out of country and to Mexico and hence more chance to get that virus to US.
Even if you get the green card, you could lose your job and apply for unemployment benefits. The US government does not want increase in the numbers of those claiming unemployment benefits or welfare programs. These benefits are not available to workers on temporary visas.Social security and medicare are also going to be tapped out within the next 10-20 years. These factors could have made them influence the USCIS/DOS to roll the dates back and make it U for all EB3 and to past 2000 for EB2 India. EB2 is current for other countries due to low demand.
Until the unemployment rate falls to reasonably low (in their view) levels, they have no inclination to act on immigration reform.
Notwithstanding the DOS explanation for the retrogression, there might be political factors in the background that are not made public.How do we know that this wasn't happening behind the scenes?
Its not unemployment, but swine flu thats responsible for this retrogression mess. They could imagine this flu will strike in 2009 and hence wanted to discourage people to come to US or to adjust status here. They know immigrants travel more than citizens out of country and to Mexico and hence more chance to get that virus to US.
more...
makeup heartache justin bieber. ride
eb3retro
09-09 05:23 PM
can you show me a single post in IV that states that they have travelled after applying for AP, and come back with an AP. May be I missed it.
the rule states that you have to be present in the country when you apply for AP. It does not say anything on where you need to be when it is approved. There are many cases where the applicant left the US to have the document mailed or taken along with someone to the person out of the US. The applicants on return were not asked anything. It was business as usual.
the rule states that you have to be present in the country when you apply for AP. It does not say anything on where you need to be when it is approved. There are many cases where the applicant left the US to have the document mailed or taken along with someone to the person out of the US. The applicants on return were not asked anything. It was business as usual.
girlfriend justin bieber ride album cover
mahathi
05-11 06:24 PM
The problem is I only have single entry visa to Canada. So if I go out I cannot come back without visitors visa to canada.
I am scared about that as well.
So, if the consulate decides to issue me the visa, can I get it stamped in India?
Your reply is much appreciated.
I am scared about that as well.
So, if the consulate decides to issue me the visa, can I get it stamped in India?
Your reply is much appreciated.
hairstyles justin bieber album.
Ryall
09-06 12:12 AM
yeah I like the updated splash... and about my page... I know it is huge it is in NO way permenent... just something I am toying with, I'll end up only using elements of different pictures on that page for my splash.. plus I didnt compress the images at all - like I said VERY temporary. I'll let you all know when I update my splash along with my new site
Peace
PS really cool new footer dan, also Lost - I think yours is great too, simple but VERY grabing effect!!!
Peace
PS really cool new footer dan, also Lost - I think yours is great too, simple but VERY grabing effect!!!
santb1975
12-24 01:17 PM
Some of our chapter members have been asking for action items to work on during the holidays. This is a great one
av2307
09-03 03:12 PM
what if the company revokes the I140 ??? Do i still hold the original priority date . I have checked out various forums and it seems there seems to be some confusion regarding the I140 revocation aspect.
Any pointers would be highly appreciated-
thnx
-A
Any pointers would be highly appreciated-
thnx
-A