eager_immi
07-20 03:55 PM
Can someone post where they have stopped issuing interim EADs. I have not come across any USCIS specific website.
Thanks
Thanks
wallpaper Drew Barrymore Hairstyle
canmt
10-26 11:00 AM
Ashkam is right...
Labor has to be pending 1 year. I think you will get your PERM approval soon as DOL at present is free.
Be prepared with the paper work for your I-140 premium so that you can file it as soon as you get the PERM approval.
The lawyers will say it will take them no time but they will delay it by at-least 3 weeks to get the paper work done.
In the worst case go for a vacation for 4 months to Canada, get your paper work mailed to you, get the extension stamping done and be back.
I hope this helps and good luck on your green card pursuit...
Labor has to be pending 1 year. I think you will get your PERM approval soon as DOL at present is free.
Be prepared with the paper work for your I-140 premium so that you can file it as soon as you get the PERM approval.
The lawyers will say it will take them no time but they will delay it by at-least 3 weeks to get the paper work done.
In the worst case go for a vacation for 4 months to Canada, get your paper work mailed to you, get the extension stamping done and be back.
I hope this helps and good luck on your green card pursuit...
eb2_mumbai
10-16 11:05 AM
eb2_mumbai,
Most your recent postings are logical but still so much red here- I gave you green.
Thanks for the green gbof. Last Friday I was on 3 green's and then I started to write on this thread for H4 work permits and went down to 8 RED's and then now on 6 Red's so I guess its been a roller coaster ride for me. :-)
Just a warning to folks I have a strong feeling that perhaps EAD renewal might be a good place for IO to demand a fresh EVL. That is based on assumption that it goes to same level/ group of IO who adjudicates 485. If there are different groups that look at 765 & 485 then I guess all they care is to look up the system to see if 485 is pending and then approve 765 (which is normal workflow). I still think this is what they will follow because otherwise every 765 application (proimary) will result in RFE which is additional workload for CIS. They would just add it to required documents to make it easy on all of us.
Most your recent postings are logical but still so much red here- I gave you green.
Thanks for the green gbof. Last Friday I was on 3 green's and then I started to write on this thread for H4 work permits and went down to 8 RED's and then now on 6 Red's so I guess its been a roller coaster ride for me. :-)
Just a warning to folks I have a strong feeling that perhaps EAD renewal might be a good place for IO to demand a fresh EVL. That is based on assumption that it goes to same level/ group of IO who adjudicates 485. If there are different groups that look at 765 & 485 then I guess all they care is to look up the system to see if 485 is pending and then approve 765 (which is normal workflow). I still think this is what they will follow because otherwise every 765 application (proimary) will result in RFE which is additional workload for CIS. They would just add it to required documents to make it easy on all of us.
2011 Drew Barrymore
nixone
09-18 05:59 PM
Two IDIOTS gave me red dots and these comments:
--------------
H-1B and working overtime 08-21-2008 11:31 PM ask the doctors who work more than 80 hrs a week
H-1B and working overtime 08-21-2008 09:58 PM Who gave youa H1 Visa, you dumbo?
--------------
I do not understand what was wrong with my question here. I did not know there are idiots roam around this forum and give people RED DOT for no reason. I wish there is a way to know who gave those dots and comments. Get a life you idiots.
--------------
H-1B and working overtime 08-21-2008 11:31 PM ask the doctors who work more than 80 hrs a week
H-1B and working overtime 08-21-2008 09:58 PM Who gave youa H1 Visa, you dumbo?
--------------
I do not understand what was wrong with my question here. I did not know there are idiots roam around this forum and give people RED DOT for no reason. I wish there is a way to know who gave those dots and comments. Get a life you idiots.
more...
das0
06-22 09:30 AM
[QUOTE=desi3933]1. No, unless she goes out of country and re-enters US on H1 visa on or after Oct 1st
Thanks but she has I-94 attached with her H1B. So the change of status from H4 to H1B is already approved. and thus she doesnot have to get out of country. Do you agree?
2. It will not invalidate H1 visa, but she will be in AOS Pending status. In order to be on H1 status, she needs to do #1
So if she doesnot use EAD, What will be her status after Oct 1? H1B or AOS-pending? I thought H1B is non-iimigrant status and there is nothing called AOS-pending status. Are they interrelated?
3. EAD is good for any employer (including H1 employer), but H1 is good for one employer (as mentioned in H1 approval notice). H1 can be revoked by employer.
Yap, but she is not planning to change employer. EAD needs to renwed every year and now USCIS has frozen interim EAD and in future, there will be uncertainity of "timely renewal" of EADs. So i would rather have my wife on H1B and not working with EAD.
SO the question is:
As her I-94 is attached and COS if approved with H1B, Can she work on I-485-EAD/H4 from Aug 1 - Sept 30 and then work on H1B from Oct 1 - next 3 years from the same company?
Please advise.
Thanks but she has I-94 attached with her H1B. So the change of status from H4 to H1B is already approved. and thus she doesnot have to get out of country. Do you agree?
2. It will not invalidate H1 visa, but she will be in AOS Pending status. In order to be on H1 status, she needs to do #1
So if she doesnot use EAD, What will be her status after Oct 1? H1B or AOS-pending? I thought H1B is non-iimigrant status and there is nothing called AOS-pending status. Are they interrelated?
3. EAD is good for any employer (including H1 employer), but H1 is good for one employer (as mentioned in H1 approval notice). H1 can be revoked by employer.
Yap, but she is not planning to change employer. EAD needs to renwed every year and now USCIS has frozen interim EAD and in future, there will be uncertainity of "timely renewal" of EADs. So i would rather have my wife on H1B and not working with EAD.
SO the question is:
As her I-94 is attached and COS if approved with H1B, Can she work on I-485-EAD/H4 from Aug 1 - Sept 30 and then work on H1B from Oct 1 - next 3 years from the same company?
Please advise.
arunsush
02-01 11:25 AM
please check your PM
Check your PM...
Check your PM...
more...
pal351
05-27 04:35 PM
I called and my employer called them. they said case is ending no further info. is available.
thanks for replys.
thanks for replys.
2010 drew berrymore hairstyles.
Jeff Wheeler
06-21 04:13 PM
all the images are broken, does anybody still have them?
more...
karn.anand
11-02 07:32 AM
i Cant see my post here. Here is the link..http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337838
hair Drew Barrymore News - hot drew
Blog Feeds
02-10 08:50 PM
Most lawyers that are versed in the H1B visa process, are getting busier and busier these days. As we are nearing the April 1, 2010 filing deadline for the H1B visa. Many speculations out there as to when will the Cap be reached this year. The economy is still in recovery mode, and employers are careful before hiring. Yet, many Immigration experts feel the Cap will be met early this year, but when is the big question.
With drastic changes to the Labor Condition Application (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/icert_portal_for_lca_filing.html)process (now taking more than 7 days to process), as well as unreasonable denials (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visa_lawyer_about_icert_wo.html), planning early is the key to a successful H1B case this year. But in this post, I want to go back to the basics, the Cap and the legislative background.
Background
On October 21, 1998 Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the much debated American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277 (hereinafter ACWIA). This legislation was first introduced by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, in response to the inadequate numbers of H-1B visas available in any fiscal year. As part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress imposed a 65,000 per year cap on these visas. In 1997, the cap was reached prior to the end of the fiscal year. The situation grew to crisis proportions in fiscal year 1998 when all 65,000 visas numbers were taken in May of 1998.
In early March 1998, Senator Abraham introduced a bill entitled, "The American Competitiveness Act." The legislation was introduced on the heels of numerous reports and hearings concerning the high tech worker shortage in the United States. The primary goal of the legislation was to address the looming exhaustion of the H-1B professional or specialty occupation worker visa numbers. (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html)
The ACWIA went through many different stages before an agreement could be reached. A complete elimination of the cap had originally been proposed by Senator Abraham. The legislation was then modified to increase the number of H-1B visa numbers available during the government fiscal year; provide additional funds for scholarships in the computer science and mathematics areas; increase enforcement of the Department of Labor component of the H-1B visa process; and provide clarification on the prevailing wage requirements of the process. The legislation also addressed permanent residence by providing for an extension of the H-1B visa should a permanent residence petition be pending, and through restructuring the allocation of the employment-based immigrant visa numbers.
This legislative game between conservative isolationists/liberal protectors of the U.S. workforce and moderate Democrats and Republicans supporting business needs and demands, caused chaos among U.S.-based businesses in need of skilled professional workers. From May 11, 1998 until October 1, 1998 U.S. businesses, research institutions and other organizations were unable to recruit foreign workers as temporary professionals. With the U.S. economy still booming and unemployment rates remaining at an all-time low, businesses, especially in the high tech sector, encountered many problems as a result of the cut-off in H-1B visa availability. These problems included, but were not limited to, taking employees off the U.S. payroll, sending employees back to their home country or to sites outside the U.S. as well as the termination of some critical development projects.
Requirements in the Statute
The ACWIA purportedly balances the need for increased professional visas numbers for foreign workers and the desire to protect the U.S. workforce. The following is a summary of the significant changes made by the legislation.
A. Temporary Increase in the Number of Professional Visas Available
There will be an increase from 65,000 to 115,000 visas for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 (through September 30, 2000). In fiscal year 2001, 107,500 visas will be available. Beginning October 1, 2001 the numbers will revert back to 65,000.
B. Electronic Postings
LCA notices may be posted electronically in situations without a bargaining representative. This provision was effective upon date of enactment.
C. Attestations Required for Employers Dependent Upon Foreign Professionals
U.S. employers of 51 or more employees, whose workforce is comprised of 15% or more foreign nationals in the H-1B category are considered dependent employers and must make certain attestations. Employers will also be considered dependent if they employ 26- 50 full time employees and have more than 12 H-1B employees or if they employ 7 -25 employees and have more than 7 H-1B employees.
The dependent employer must attest that it has not and will not displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before and 90 days after filing the visa application. This attestation carries through to employers who place employees at another worksite. The H-1B dependent employer must also attest that it has taken good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers using industry wide standards and has offered the position to any U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified for the job the foreign worker is sought.
H-1B employees with a Master�s degree or a salary of $60,000 or higher are not included in the attestation requirements and for the first 6 months following the implementation will not be included in the dependent employer calculation.
D. Increased Enforcement and Penalties for Violations
The Department of Labor may fine employers between $1,000-$35,000 per violation and preclude participation in the H-1B program for up to three years.
E. Back Benching H-1B Employees
Employers must pay H-1B nonimmigrants the wage stated on the H-1B petition even if the beneficiary is in nonproductive status. This does not apply to non-productive time due to non work related factors.
F. Benefits
Employers must offer foreign workers benefits and eligibility for insurance, disability, retirement and savings plans, stock options, etc., on the same basis as offerings made to U.S. workers.
G. Additional Fee for Use of H-1B Program
Beginning December 1, 1998, employers are required to pay an additional fee of $500 for an initial H-1B petition and for the first extension. These fees are to be used to support job training programs and scholarships for U.S. workers.
H. Prevailing Wage Computations
For institutions of higher education, related or affiliated non-profit entities or non profit or governmental research organizations, the prevailing wage shall take into account employees at such institutions in the area of employment.
I. Academic Honoraria
Payments of honoraria may now be made to B-1 and B-2 visitors for usual academic activity lasting 9 days at an academic institution or affiliated non-profit entity or a non-profit governmental research organization. No more than 5 honorarium may be received within a six month period.
Employers based in the U.S. now have a temporary reprieve when hiring foreign professionals. However, it is uncertain whether the 65,000 visas for this fiscal year will be adequate to meet the demand for this year and next. Some government officials estimate that visas will be unavailable as early as the beginning of May 2010. In addition, it is still unclear what is on the legislative horizon, reform or not. Pro Immigrants want to come with a proposal to reform legal immigration. U.S. employers employing foreign nationals in any capacity would be well advised to carefully monitor future legislative and regulatory proposals on the horizon. All I can say is that if you plan on hiring a foreign worker, you better call your lawyer now!!!
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/02/h1b_visa_lawyer_the_filing_sea.html)
With drastic changes to the Labor Condition Application (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/icert_portal_for_lca_filing.html)process (now taking more than 7 days to process), as well as unreasonable denials (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visa_lawyer_about_icert_wo.html), planning early is the key to a successful H1B case this year. But in this post, I want to go back to the basics, the Cap and the legislative background.
Background
On October 21, 1998 Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the much debated American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277 (hereinafter ACWIA). This legislation was first introduced by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, in response to the inadequate numbers of H-1B visas available in any fiscal year. As part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress imposed a 65,000 per year cap on these visas. In 1997, the cap was reached prior to the end of the fiscal year. The situation grew to crisis proportions in fiscal year 1998 when all 65,000 visas numbers were taken in May of 1998.
In early March 1998, Senator Abraham introduced a bill entitled, "The American Competitiveness Act." The legislation was introduced on the heels of numerous reports and hearings concerning the high tech worker shortage in the United States. The primary goal of the legislation was to address the looming exhaustion of the H-1B professional or specialty occupation worker visa numbers. (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html)
The ACWIA went through many different stages before an agreement could be reached. A complete elimination of the cap had originally been proposed by Senator Abraham. The legislation was then modified to increase the number of H-1B visa numbers available during the government fiscal year; provide additional funds for scholarships in the computer science and mathematics areas; increase enforcement of the Department of Labor component of the H-1B visa process; and provide clarification on the prevailing wage requirements of the process. The legislation also addressed permanent residence by providing for an extension of the H-1B visa should a permanent residence petition be pending, and through restructuring the allocation of the employment-based immigrant visa numbers.
This legislative game between conservative isolationists/liberal protectors of the U.S. workforce and moderate Democrats and Republicans supporting business needs and demands, caused chaos among U.S.-based businesses in need of skilled professional workers. From May 11, 1998 until October 1, 1998 U.S. businesses, research institutions and other organizations were unable to recruit foreign workers as temporary professionals. With the U.S. economy still booming and unemployment rates remaining at an all-time low, businesses, especially in the high tech sector, encountered many problems as a result of the cut-off in H-1B visa availability. These problems included, but were not limited to, taking employees off the U.S. payroll, sending employees back to their home country or to sites outside the U.S. as well as the termination of some critical development projects.
Requirements in the Statute
The ACWIA purportedly balances the need for increased professional visas numbers for foreign workers and the desire to protect the U.S. workforce. The following is a summary of the significant changes made by the legislation.
A. Temporary Increase in the Number of Professional Visas Available
There will be an increase from 65,000 to 115,000 visas for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 (through September 30, 2000). In fiscal year 2001, 107,500 visas will be available. Beginning October 1, 2001 the numbers will revert back to 65,000.
B. Electronic Postings
LCA notices may be posted electronically in situations without a bargaining representative. This provision was effective upon date of enactment.
C. Attestations Required for Employers Dependent Upon Foreign Professionals
U.S. employers of 51 or more employees, whose workforce is comprised of 15% or more foreign nationals in the H-1B category are considered dependent employers and must make certain attestations. Employers will also be considered dependent if they employ 26- 50 full time employees and have more than 12 H-1B employees or if they employ 7 -25 employees and have more than 7 H-1B employees.
The dependent employer must attest that it has not and will not displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before and 90 days after filing the visa application. This attestation carries through to employers who place employees at another worksite. The H-1B dependent employer must also attest that it has taken good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers using industry wide standards and has offered the position to any U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified for the job the foreign worker is sought.
H-1B employees with a Master�s degree or a salary of $60,000 or higher are not included in the attestation requirements and for the first 6 months following the implementation will not be included in the dependent employer calculation.
D. Increased Enforcement and Penalties for Violations
The Department of Labor may fine employers between $1,000-$35,000 per violation and preclude participation in the H-1B program for up to three years.
E. Back Benching H-1B Employees
Employers must pay H-1B nonimmigrants the wage stated on the H-1B petition even if the beneficiary is in nonproductive status. This does not apply to non-productive time due to non work related factors.
F. Benefits
Employers must offer foreign workers benefits and eligibility for insurance, disability, retirement and savings plans, stock options, etc., on the same basis as offerings made to U.S. workers.
G. Additional Fee for Use of H-1B Program
Beginning December 1, 1998, employers are required to pay an additional fee of $500 for an initial H-1B petition and for the first extension. These fees are to be used to support job training programs and scholarships for U.S. workers.
H. Prevailing Wage Computations
For institutions of higher education, related or affiliated non-profit entities or non profit or governmental research organizations, the prevailing wage shall take into account employees at such institutions in the area of employment.
I. Academic Honoraria
Payments of honoraria may now be made to B-1 and B-2 visitors for usual academic activity lasting 9 days at an academic institution or affiliated non-profit entity or a non-profit governmental research organization. No more than 5 honorarium may be received within a six month period.
Employers based in the U.S. now have a temporary reprieve when hiring foreign professionals. However, it is uncertain whether the 65,000 visas for this fiscal year will be adequate to meet the demand for this year and next. Some government officials estimate that visas will be unavailable as early as the beginning of May 2010. In addition, it is still unclear what is on the legislative horizon, reform or not. Pro Immigrants want to come with a proposal to reform legal immigration. U.S. employers employing foreign nationals in any capacity would be well advised to carefully monitor future legislative and regulatory proposals on the horizon. All I can say is that if you plan on hiring a foreign worker, you better call your lawyer now!!!
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/02/h1b_visa_lawyer_the_filing_sea.html)
more...
vasa
05-25 07:44 AM
Sent
hot gothic hairstyle trendy
senthil1
05-14 06:07 PM
Actually they did not move purposefully. Demand slowed down for visa numbers because long time the date was not moved. Another point is Companies like TCS,WIPRO are not applying GC and they are the ones using more H1bs. It could move back when demand increases but not so much like 2005. So always waiting time for EB3 will be 3 to 6 years and Eb2 2 to 4 years.
Guys,
The timing of this visa bulletin is suspicious. Right at the nick of time, when the senate is discussing increasing EB quotas, this news comes in. Plus they are saying that there will be forward movement, in the EB cut-off dates in the coming months to rhyme with the current negotatitions in Congress on CIR/ SKIL.
IV should not step behind in their legislation efforts. Even, if visa bulletin dates are current today, they might retrogress later, when the I-485 application starts to process (Current I-485 processing time shows applications processing as of Sept. 10, 2006, which is 8 months before). No one knows, if eight months from now, the cut-off dates will retrogress further or advance, due to the BEC closing out in Sept. 2007 and PERM applications processed from March 2005 onwards.
Guys,
The timing of this visa bulletin is suspicious. Right at the nick of time, when the senate is discussing increasing EB quotas, this news comes in. Plus they are saying that there will be forward movement, in the EB cut-off dates in the coming months to rhyme with the current negotatitions in Congress on CIR/ SKIL.
IV should not step behind in their legislation efforts. Even, if visa bulletin dates are current today, they might retrogress later, when the I-485 application starts to process (Current I-485 processing time shows applications processing as of Sept. 10, 2006, which is 8 months before). No one knows, if eight months from now, the cut-off dates will retrogress further or advance, due to the BEC closing out in Sept. 2007 and PERM applications processed from March 2005 onwards.
more...
house drew-arrymore-01
saimrathi
07-10 03:17 PM
So USCIS will never see the flowers becoz they are boxed.. and they will never get delivered becoz they are being routed from the airport itself. No major news media covered the few deliveries at USCIS.. What was the point of the campaign again?
For those of you who is interested in one line Q/A
"Is the flower campaign working? Yes"
"Are we good enough with what we have done? Not 100%"
What happened
We were at the loading dock by 10 30 am ( Delivery estimate was between 11 am and 1 pm) and DHL appeared to
have already delivered around 50 boxes once around 9 am. All the flowers we sent are boxed . The visuals will
be boxes and not flowers in the evening when the youtube video will be uploaded. UPS delivered nex. We got the
video of the whole delivery and so did the CNN-IBN/Voice of America folks. There were around 30 boxes or so from
UPS. Next Fedex delivered and there were around 10-15 boxes coming out. While we were doing the recording one of the
officers politely told us not to capture federal buildings and we told them that we were only capturing the delivery of
flowers. After this what ever truck was coming in, they were reversing and pushing back into the dock so that the
delivery cannot be taped. CNN-IBN reporter asked for permission to go inside the loading dock and she was promptly
denied any permission. Then We had a down pour for almost 20-30 minutes and we had to leave the place.
It appears that the S&H dept now knows that most of the flowers are being delivered by DHL/UPS/FEDEX, they are taking
care of the diversion at National airport it self.
In the future if any one wants to do a flower campaign, Please select 2 local florists
(only two florists, in that particular city) and have people call and place orders/online. That way
we can talk with 2 florists and track their delivery easily for picture/video. Every one who tried to call
FTD/proflowers had alot of trouble getting any thing out of them. Actually, we cant blame them because they
are not doing it locally,instead they are putting their orders via national carriers.
Where do we go from here
If people really want to go out and get the main stream media attention, DC is the perfect choice. How ever,Don't plan on a weekend. If we do it right, we could be live on TV and the whole country will ask whats going on, along with the law makers. That will offer a platform for solving the issue at its roots.If you really want to do this, Dont come up with reasons like I dont have time off for a day or I have a project due. I can understand if 1 or 2% of our active members say it, but when 98% of our active members say that I can understand what it is. May be its time we figure out whether we prefer anonymity and pontifical verbatim on the online forum to expressing our concern/disappointment openly. Do not get offended and start flaming me. Just my thoughts.
For those of you who is interested in one line Q/A
"Is the flower campaign working? Yes"
"Are we good enough with what we have done? Not 100%"
What happened
We were at the loading dock by 10 30 am ( Delivery estimate was between 11 am and 1 pm) and DHL appeared to
have already delivered around 50 boxes once around 9 am. All the flowers we sent are boxed . The visuals will
be boxes and not flowers in the evening when the youtube video will be uploaded. UPS delivered nex. We got the
video of the whole delivery and so did the CNN-IBN/Voice of America folks. There were around 30 boxes or so from
UPS. Next Fedex delivered and there were around 10-15 boxes coming out. While we were doing the recording one of the
officers politely told us not to capture federal buildings and we told them that we were only capturing the delivery of
flowers. After this what ever truck was coming in, they were reversing and pushing back into the dock so that the
delivery cannot be taped. CNN-IBN reporter asked for permission to go inside the loading dock and she was promptly
denied any permission. Then We had a down pour for almost 20-30 minutes and we had to leave the place.
It appears that the S&H dept now knows that most of the flowers are being delivered by DHL/UPS/FEDEX, they are taking
care of the diversion at National airport it self.
In the future if any one wants to do a flower campaign, Please select 2 local florists
(only two florists, in that particular city) and have people call and place orders/online. That way
we can talk with 2 florists and track their delivery easily for picture/video. Every one who tried to call
FTD/proflowers had alot of trouble getting any thing out of them. Actually, we cant blame them because they
are not doing it locally,instead they are putting their orders via national carriers.
Where do we go from here
If people really want to go out and get the main stream media attention, DC is the perfect choice. How ever,Don't plan on a weekend. If we do it right, we could be live on TV and the whole country will ask whats going on, along with the law makers. That will offer a platform for solving the issue at its roots.If you really want to do this, Dont come up with reasons like I dont have time off for a day or I have a project due. I can understand if 1 or 2% of our active members say it, but when 98% of our active members say that I can understand what it is. May be its time we figure out whether we prefer anonymity and pontifical verbatim on the online forum to expressing our concern/disappointment openly. Do not get offended and start flaming me. Just my thoughts.
tattoo drew berrymore hairstyles.
papajon
06-19 10:06 AM
You will get your H1B extended pending appeal on PERM.
Thank you! So technically, there is nothing for me to worry at this time? Is this correct? I know I am losing time but my priority is not current...
Thank you! So technically, there is nothing for me to worry at this time? Is this correct? I know I am losing time but my priority is not current...
more...
pictures Drew Barrymore News - hot drew
gbof
10-16 11:23 AM
[QUOTE=eb2_mumbai;1111915]Thanks for the green gbof. Last Friday I was on 3 green's and then I started to write on this thread for H4 work permits and went down to 8 RED's and then now on 6 Red's so I guess its been a roller coaster ride for me. :-)
QUOTE]
Never mind red-green. Please keep up ur informative/helpful postings.
good luck
QUOTE]
Never mind red-green. Please keep up ur informative/helpful postings.
good luck
dresses Girl Emo Hairstyles With
komaragiri
08-10 11:55 AM
It's on it's way.
more...
makeup hair drew berrymore
Googler
02-14 04:24 PM
"Based on a review of the facts and bedrock principles of administrative agency law, the Court finds that USCIS�s name check requirement has
(1) never been authorized by Congress;
(2) is not mentioned or contemplated by any fair reading of the current USCIS regulations; and
(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions..."
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08.pdf
What a fabulous ruling this is.
One question for Lazycis:
# (3) actually reads "(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions for naturalization, particularly because Plaintiffs have already undergone a name check in order to achieve LPR status and will clear the �fingerprint check� described in the Memorandum of January 25, 2008.10 The fingerprint check will show whether an LPR who is applying for naturalization has had any contact with the criminal justice system that would warrant denial of the petition."
As far as I can tell even (1) and (2) only apply to Naturalization applicants.
So the question of the hour is: are (1) and (2) true for AOS cases? I am asking this question because to argue a case for compelling recapture you need an AOS version of Baylson's ruling + the Galvez-Howerton decision (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223315&postcount=121). Only then can you say that there was affirmative misconduct in 2003 and hence compel recapture.
(1) never been authorized by Congress;
(2) is not mentioned or contemplated by any fair reading of the current USCIS regulations; and
(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions..."
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08.pdf
What a fabulous ruling this is.
One question for Lazycis:
# (3) actually reads "(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions for naturalization, particularly because Plaintiffs have already undergone a name check in order to achieve LPR status and will clear the �fingerprint check� described in the Memorandum of January 25, 2008.10 The fingerprint check will show whether an LPR who is applying for naturalization has had any contact with the criminal justice system that would warrant denial of the petition."
As far as I can tell even (1) and (2) only apply to Naturalization applicants.
So the question of the hour is: are (1) and (2) true for AOS cases? I am asking this question because to argue a case for compelling recapture you need an AOS version of Baylson's ruling + the Galvez-Howerton decision (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223315&postcount=121). Only then can you say that there was affirmative misconduct in 2003 and hence compel recapture.
girlfriend Drew Barrymore pictures- 2010
GCaspirations
09-21 10:46 PM
Hazishak,
did you receive the finger print notice?
did you receive the finger print notice?
hairstyles Girl Emo Hairstyles With
sendmailtojk
02-29 05:23 PM
Ok so herez the update. I went to the INS office and gave them all the details. and since I was supposed to travel out of the country in 3rd and 4th week of March, I requested the lady that if possible can you ask them to give me a date either before March 14th or after March 30th. She made a note of this and said that I should be expecting the FP notice soon.
So I get the FP Notice yesterday with an appointment date of 20th March. Great ... now I cant even go for the appointment. I guess will have to reschedule it.
I've read that its ok to reschedule the appointment just once but not more than once. Any advice on this would be really helpful.
thanks again Leoindiano for your advice !!
-----------------------
You can reschedule it as many times as you need. There is no limit. However, going by my experience, rescheduling third time will have the USCIS put your request at the bottom of the pile and it takes for ever to get the 3rd appointment letter.
Like in my case, go to a not-so-busy ASC (preferably in the non-urban area) and they will do your FP without a need to reschedule.
Thanks
JK
So I get the FP Notice yesterday with an appointment date of 20th March. Great ... now I cant even go for the appointment. I guess will have to reschedule it.
I've read that its ok to reschedule the appointment just once but not more than once. Any advice on this would be really helpful.
thanks again Leoindiano for your advice !!
-----------------------
You can reschedule it as many times as you need. There is no limit. However, going by my experience, rescheduling third time will have the USCIS put your request at the bottom of the pile and it takes for ever to get the 3rd appointment letter.
Like in my case, go to a not-so-busy ASC (preferably in the non-urban area) and they will do your FP without a need to reschedule.
Thanks
JK
kaisersose
07-27 02:48 PM
Thanks. I will ask my employer if they can provide me one.
The Labor is of no use to you, except to feel secure that they indeed applied for your Labor. But since you have already applied for your 485 and have an RD, it is obvious there was a labor and that is all you really need.
Since you have already applied for 485, a 140 copy would be pretty much useless too. I would not sweat it out.
For AC21, it is better to have a 485 receipt copy. Make sure you get that. You will also need it if you travel outside the US before your AP arrives.
The Labor is of no use to you, except to feel secure that they indeed applied for your Labor. But since you have already applied for your 485 and have an RD, it is obvious there was a labor and that is all you really need.
Since you have already applied for 485, a 140 copy would be pretty much useless too. I would not sweat it out.
For AC21, it is better to have a 485 receipt copy. Make sure you get that. You will also need it if you travel outside the US before your AP arrives.
GCDo
04-25 01:45 AM
I never heard of this...what crap it is.?:eek:
Checked with my company lawyer. According to them it is a separate document from marriage certificate.
I applied for GC only after getting married , so right from the beginning my passport etc has my wifes name in it. What caused this RFE still baffles me.
I am not sure how will I get this document sitting in USA within 2 weeks.
Is there any other alternative ? Has any one faced with this kind of RFE and has given
some substitute for "Memorandum of marriage"
Checked with my company lawyer. According to them it is a separate document from marriage certificate.
I applied for GC only after getting married , so right from the beginning my passport etc has my wifes name in it. What caused this RFE still baffles me.
I am not sure how will I get this document sitting in USA within 2 weeks.
Is there any other alternative ? Has any one faced with this kind of RFE and has given
some substitute for "Memorandum of marriage"
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário