deepimpact
08-23 09:29 AM
deepimpact, shame on you to think like this. This is just one more of example of how ignorant the immigrant community is about the ground realities of these law changes in the employment-based immigration rules which includes H1B, L1s, EB apps etc.
1. The neufield memo of Employer-employee relationship & giving not 3 years of H1B visas but in some cases depending on the contract 3 months of H1B visas.
2. The fee hikes of H1B & L1 visas.
3. Make EB1, EB2 etc more strict to make it almost impossible to get anymore EB2 apps approved. BTW there is nothing which stops them from issuing another memo to review all EB2/EB3 I-140 approval and revise the approvals & deny them if deemed necessary. What would you say then?
You completely missed the point. Put the events in chronological order and you will realize why IV Core insists on meeting lawmakers. Pretty soon, there will be no avenues even with a lot of legitimate experience for an immigrant unless they end up winning nobel prizes....sorry there are not many nobel prize winners in this world and I have not met one so far.
Anyway, hope others continue to meet the lawmakers leaving your EB2-EB3 divide to ask them for recapture and removal of country limits.
Peace.
I aplogize if I hurt someone. But don't shoot the messenger, I was trying to enumerate the possible impacts of the memo. And looking at current changes to employment based immigration policies be it about H1B,L1 or EB it appears they are trying to clamp down on rather lose interpretation of minimum requirements for these visa categories which has led to overuse and abuse of them.for e.g H1B going to lottery on the very first day in 2008.
But it seems these specifications are about EB1 and EB2 with exceptional ability (not with advance degree category) where the requriements is just a list of 10 items without any emphasis on what is defined as a succesful crietria of meeting those items.
I guess you may have got pissed off with my third point , believe me I am not one here to create EB2-EB3 divide. Because no change in legislation is going to be for a particular EB category, it needs to be for the entire EB. Be it visa recapture, per country limit removal or dependants not being counted.
1. The neufield memo of Employer-employee relationship & giving not 3 years of H1B visas but in some cases depending on the contract 3 months of H1B visas.
2. The fee hikes of H1B & L1 visas.
3. Make EB1, EB2 etc more strict to make it almost impossible to get anymore EB2 apps approved. BTW there is nothing which stops them from issuing another memo to review all EB2/EB3 I-140 approval and revise the approvals & deny them if deemed necessary. What would you say then?
You completely missed the point. Put the events in chronological order and you will realize why IV Core insists on meeting lawmakers. Pretty soon, there will be no avenues even with a lot of legitimate experience for an immigrant unless they end up winning nobel prizes....sorry there are not many nobel prize winners in this world and I have not met one so far.
Anyway, hope others continue to meet the lawmakers leaving your EB2-EB3 divide to ask them for recapture and removal of country limits.
Peace.
I aplogize if I hurt someone. But don't shoot the messenger, I was trying to enumerate the possible impacts of the memo. And looking at current changes to employment based immigration policies be it about H1B,L1 or EB it appears they are trying to clamp down on rather lose interpretation of minimum requirements for these visa categories which has led to overuse and abuse of them.for e.g H1B going to lottery on the very first day in 2008.
But it seems these specifications are about EB1 and EB2 with exceptional ability (not with advance degree category) where the requriements is just a list of 10 items without any emphasis on what is defined as a succesful crietria of meeting those items.
I guess you may have got pissed off with my third point , believe me I am not one here to create EB2-EB3 divide. Because no change in legislation is going to be for a particular EB category, it needs to be for the entire EB. Be it visa recapture, per country limit removal or dependants not being counted.
wallpaper Kristen Stewart has gorgeous
amit_sp
03-04 10:18 AM
In my case; I was offered a refinancing rate that was 0.5% more than what I would pay if I were a GC holder. The reasoning is the short term validity of H1. Ironically I wasn't discriminated 3 years ago when I bought my house. At that time; I even didn't have my labor cert cleared. Now 3 years down the line; I have cleared first 2 stages and applied to I-485; bank charges me more :) Weird!!!!
komaragiri
08-02 04:26 PM
i am a 2nd july filer, my cheques were cashed today. filed at nebraska
Congrats !! Hopefully we all get some good news before the weekend !
Congrats !! Hopefully we all get some good news before the weekend !
2011 Kristen Stewart cut her hair
rameshk75
01-09 03:00 PM
The status of AP seems to be changing practically everyday. The message (document mailed) first appeared on Jan 7, Then changed to Jan 8 with same message and today I see a date change in my portfolio (last updated section). Not sure when the document will actually get mailed...
Even i had two LUD's on 6th and 7th !! Don't know what is that !!
Even i had two LUD's on 6th and 7th !! Don't know what is that !!
more...
Kodi
06-16 01:57 PM
Mine is just over a month but won't be clearing for a while since there's lot more cases pending that were filed before me. Can I still email/Call?
They don't seem to be going in any order. Some applications from April was cleared recently where as Feb March is still pending..
They don't seem to be going in any order. Some applications from April was cleared recently where as Feb March is still pending..
knnmbd
04-26 12:39 PM
Guys ,
We have to stick to immigration reform..
Let's not get into the medicare/social security/income tax issues.
That would open a complete new front on which the immigration refrom opponents can attack you...
Our organization has to steer clear of the landmine issues like Medicare, Social Security reform. Those issues have sank many political careers in washington...These issues are tar pits..swamps...
We are threading a needle here...the thicker your thread gets..the less likely it would get through the needle hole..
We have to maintain focus and not get carried away.
Guys,
I agree with msp1976 on this. We need to focus on only the retrogression issue; everything else is great for time pass till the 27th when the SJC reconvenes.
We have to stick to immigration reform..
Let's not get into the medicare/social security/income tax issues.
That would open a complete new front on which the immigration refrom opponents can attack you...
Our organization has to steer clear of the landmine issues like Medicare, Social Security reform. Those issues have sank many political careers in washington...These issues are tar pits..swamps...
We are threading a needle here...the thicker your thread gets..the less likely it would get through the needle hole..
We have to maintain focus and not get carried away.
Guys,
I agree with msp1976 on this. We need to focus on only the retrogression issue; everything else is great for time pass till the 27th when the SJC reconvenes.
more...
I_need_GC
02-27 02:16 PM
Feb 07 2008 I made an infopass appointment and saw an IO he accepts my request to expedite. Finally I get a LUD saying Documents mailed to applicant on Feb 20 2008. Then on feb 21 2008 I see a soft LUD Till today I have not received the AP. Do you thinking making an infopass appointment and requesting a copy will help. The problem is I should have been in Canada on the 9th. I don't know what else to do. This is ridiculous. Gurus please an suggestions:mad: This case was filed with the Nebraska Service center.
2010 celebrity, kristen stewart
sonyyy
06-25 10:40 AM
I agree.
Uncertainty hurts but eventually, almost everybody will get what they want in this case.
Plus, think about it this way, without this current, you won't be able to file your 485 anyway till next year.
Relax Buddy , now that the bus has come they will keep coming .Most of the people will go in this bus. The dates will retrogress for some time and will be current maybe next year . If not this bus then the next bus . No use raising your blood pressure for this . Attorneys and the media have a habit of scaring people unnecessarily . This Current date is not the end of the world , so take a chill pill ..
Uncertainty hurts but eventually, almost everybody will get what they want in this case.
Plus, think about it this way, without this current, you won't be able to file your 485 anyway till next year.
Relax Buddy , now that the bus has come they will keep coming .Most of the people will go in this bus. The dates will retrogress for some time and will be current maybe next year . If not this bus then the next bus . No use raising your blood pressure for this . Attorneys and the media have a habit of scaring people unnecessarily . This Current date is not the end of the world , so take a chill pill ..
more...
PD_Dec2002
06-02 10:12 PM
Canadian_Dream, I think your interpretation is wrong..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.�Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the [Insert title of Act] and were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think what AILA, our core group and other attorneys are trying to say is that as long as you filed before May 15, 2007 you will be fine regardless of whether your petition is pending or approved. There is no dispute about this point. Any applications that were filed after May 15, 2007 will become null and void the day this bill is signed by the president to make it a law. The 'effective date' ( Oct 1, 2008 ) does not apply for applications filed after May 15, 2007. I will be glad if you can prove me wrong :)
java_jaggu :
yes, we both are saying the same thing.
Thanks,
Jayant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.�Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the [Insert title of Act] and were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think what AILA, our core group and other attorneys are trying to say is that as long as you filed before May 15, 2007 you will be fine regardless of whether your petition is pending or approved. There is no dispute about this point. Any applications that were filed after May 15, 2007 will become null and void the day this bill is signed by the president to make it a law. The 'effective date' ( Oct 1, 2008 ) does not apply for applications filed after May 15, 2007. I will be glad if you can prove me wrong :)
java_jaggu :
yes, we both are saying the same thing.
Thanks,
Jayant
hair kristen stewart makeup
chisinau
10-05 01:13 AM
Maybe I am wrong , but I cannot see it on Thomas, among those which passed along with HR 1585. Check it out, and share your opinion.
more...
abhisam
07-27 10:00 PM
can you please publish the agenda of the meeting on the yahoo group? Thanks!
hot Kristen Stewart simply looked
baburob2
03-15 06:25 PM
Overall no big progress w.r.t our title's though Brownback's comment on immigration numbers is good.
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
more...
house kristen stewart
eastindia
04-29 05:40 PM
Can I call now? When will office close?
tattoo Kristen Stewart
senthil1
09-29 11:48 AM
USCIS can process recaptured numbers. If 200k numbers are in one year USCIS will plan for 200k numbers in that year.In 2000 they processed more applications after a immigration reform. One way of preventing wastage is plan to process all the applications in 11 months. If any unused numbers can be processed in that one month.
and the last recapture was a bill that was passed in congress.
efforts are on for a recapture. but the valid question raised is: how does a recapture help when USCIS can't even process 140,000 a year?
and the last recapture was a bill that was passed in congress.
efforts are on for a recapture. but the valid question raised is: how does a recapture help when USCIS can't even process 140,000 a year?
more...
pictures Moon star Kristen Stewart,
cellphone
09-01 04:23 PM
It will take another 9-10 years to get your GC if the system remains the same.
Please upgrade to EB2
thank you.....i have recently changed companies for that sole purpose and I just got the green light; so, I'll be going thru PERM; so may be in another 2 yrs I can get my GC.
Please upgrade to EB2
thank you.....i have recently changed companies for that sole purpose and I just got the green light; so, I'll be going thru PERM; so may be in another 2 yrs I can get my GC.
dresses Kristen Stewart kept her
singhsa3
07-20 04:03 PM
The numbers are assumptions and NOT facts. Most of these numbers have actually been pulled from other places or based on some rationale (for example 750,000 from Matthew Oh site, 5 minutes/EAD based on what need to be done to print out a card and pack in an envelop)
Workforce of 30 though is a gross assumption. Bigger the number better it is. So we may actually want to question USCIS if there are any resource constraints.
Outsourcing is a perfect Idea! What do you have in mind Wipro at Banglore? :D
What about receipt notices? Isn't that teh first step? I do not believe it will take 20 months to get a receipt notice. Are you sure they have only 30 folks for EAD. Is that a known fact? What if it is 300?
How about outsourcing it?
Workforce of 30 though is a gross assumption. Bigger the number better it is. So we may actually want to question USCIS if there are any resource constraints.
Outsourcing is a perfect Idea! What do you have in mind Wipro at Banglore? :D
What about receipt notices? Isn't that teh first step? I do not believe it will take 20 months to get a receipt notice. Are you sure they have only 30 folks for EAD. Is that a known fact? What if it is 300?
How about outsourcing it?
more...
makeup Sexy Kristen Stewart covers
vbkris77
03-06 01:57 PM
Hello, there is a better way to findout by contributing to this thread..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24184&page=3
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24184&page=3
girlfriend Kristen Stewart: Make-up like
vikasgarg24
07-21 07:05 AM
Friend
I recently got a aloan from BOA on EAD without any probem.
The Loan officer was fully aware the visa sattus. Dont know how he maneged but for me I didn't face any problem in financing from BOA.
If you still face problem send me a private message an I will pass his informations so that you will be on right loan offcer hands who understand visa status etc.
I recently got a aloan from BOA on EAD without any probem.
The Loan officer was fully aware the visa sattus. Dont know how he maneged but for me I didn't face any problem in financing from BOA.
If you still face problem send me a private message an I will pass his informations so that you will be on right loan offcer hands who understand visa status etc.
hairstyles Kristen Stewart in RM by
I_need_GC
03-14 02:06 PM
Thanks for you post about Canada Visit. You mentioned that one shouldn't say vacation for purpose of visit. What should we say then? My wife and I are going for Landing to Canada and people have posted that if you tell you landed as immigrant in Canada then Border Officers give you a hard time as well and some have even got RFE's from USCIS regarding their intent with US immigration process. So either way we are in trouble!
Friends please advise. What should you say to Border Patrol Officers on Re Entry to US with AP?:(
Also would you mind sharing what was your purpose of Visit?
AP was created for people who had an emergency to travel outside the US while there I-485 was being processed. but over the years these processes have elapse and now take longer. So now the USCIS is more lenient in issuing APs but the law still is that its for emergency travel. Now if you come across an IO who is having a bad day and asks you your reason for travel and you say vacation well he has the authority to deny you entrance. The IO can refuse you entry if he feels somethings not right.
While you have a I-485 pending trying to get Canadian landing papers in theory is a good idea but heres the problem you run in to. After get us green card or passport you take on any other nationality they don't like that. They consider it that you no longer want to be a US citizen now if you have previously held any other nationality like Indian by birth they are ok with that.
So yes if you tell the IO you went there for Canadian landing papers and are traveling on AP its sounds like you no longer want to be a US citizen.
In the past I have said visit family they are ok with that.
My Canadian visit was for work purposes. my company has a sister office in Canada. so when they asked I said to temporarily work in Canada. they were happy with that.
Friends please advise. What should you say to Border Patrol Officers on Re Entry to US with AP?:(
Also would you mind sharing what was your purpose of Visit?
AP was created for people who had an emergency to travel outside the US while there I-485 was being processed. but over the years these processes have elapse and now take longer. So now the USCIS is more lenient in issuing APs but the law still is that its for emergency travel. Now if you come across an IO who is having a bad day and asks you your reason for travel and you say vacation well he has the authority to deny you entrance. The IO can refuse you entry if he feels somethings not right.
While you have a I-485 pending trying to get Canadian landing papers in theory is a good idea but heres the problem you run in to. After get us green card or passport you take on any other nationality they don't like that. They consider it that you no longer want to be a US citizen now if you have previously held any other nationality like Indian by birth they are ok with that.
So yes if you tell the IO you went there for Canadian landing papers and are traveling on AP its sounds like you no longer want to be a US citizen.
In the past I have said visit family they are ok with that.
My Canadian visit was for work purposes. my company has a sister office in Canada. so when they asked I said to temporarily work in Canada. they were happy with that.
alok_msh
07-14 02:39 PM
Sent 25$ Conf: 7YB5G-450FX
jsquare
02-21 09:27 AM
Friends,
I have couple of questions...
My employer has filed my Labor from Georgia state...
So in which bpc my case should exists??
What is 45-days letter as I have read so many times in this forum??
My cas received date Oct 10 2004, is this Priority date??
I would appriciate proper answers
Thanks
Jsquare
I have couple of questions...
My employer has filed my Labor from Georgia state...
So in which bpc my case should exists??
What is 45-days letter as I have read so many times in this forum??
My cas received date Oct 10 2004, is this Priority date??
I would appriciate proper answers
Thanks
Jsquare
No comments:
Post a Comment