HumHongeKamiyab
01-02 11:37 AM
The % displayed here is inconsequential. As about 90% of people who have not received their FP notice would vote, but only about 5% of people who have received the FP notice would do the same (As they see more interesting thread somewhere). But I am glad someone atleast created a thread and we see 40 odd people who are in the same situation.
I applied for 485 on july 12th to NSC, case transfered to TSC. Have not got FP for both me and my wife.
there are about 40%..... so lots of them....
I applied for 485 on july 12th to NSC, case transfered to TSC. Have not got FP for both me and my wife.
there are about 40%..... so lots of them....
wallpaper Nicki Minaj – Super Bass
like_watching_paint_dry
08-20 10:58 PM
Before I slowly forget all the various pain points from the past, I'm going to add this one detail that people usually neglect:
The new process requires you to deposit a the visa processing fees at a local branch of Nova Scotia Bank and get a deposit slip to submit with the visa application when you go into the consulate. Most banks open at 9 am - 10 am. So if you have an early appointment, be sure to go there the previous business day and get the fees stuff taken care of. If not, you will find yourself scrambling to get this done at the last minute.
The new process requires you to deposit a the visa processing fees at a local branch of Nova Scotia Bank and get a deposit slip to submit with the visa application when you go into the consulate. Most banks open at 9 am - 10 am. So if you have an early appointment, be sure to go there the previous business day and get the fees stuff taken care of. If not, you will find yourself scrambling to get this done at the last minute.
aadimanav
11-02 11:06 AM
exactly! this is almost a disaster for EB folks, most people dont realize that: they think the queue is getting smaller. The queue will remain the same, .
If you take out 61000 out of a queue the queue becomes smaller. It is as simple as that.
The thing is that you want to see from the point of view where you are standing in the queue. If there are no nurses ahead of you in the line (as Paskal mentioned that earlier 50,000 were recaptured), that doesn't mean there are no nurses behind you in the queue. Overall size of the the queue becomes smaller.
However, it would have been good if the recapture was for everyone (not just nurses). Something is better than nothing. No recapture is better than recapture for someone.
If you take out 61000 out of a queue the queue becomes smaller. It is as simple as that.
The thing is that you want to see from the point of view where you are standing in the queue. If there are no nurses ahead of you in the line (as Paskal mentioned that earlier 50,000 were recaptured), that doesn't mean there are no nurses behind you in the queue. Overall size of the the queue becomes smaller.
However, it would have been good if the recapture was for everyone (not just nurses). Something is better than nothing. No recapture is better than recapture for someone.
2011 2011 nicki minaj super bass
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
chanduv23
12-16 10:59 AM
A freind of mine had two years EAD and don't have H1 anymore. His drivers License was denied as EAD is not considered a valid document for drivers License extention.
This happened in Wayne , NJ.
I too will be going for the renewal soon. Did anyone else faced similar situtation. If yes, how did they resolve?
We must get this addressed. Write to the DMV to sort this out. Pending 485 is a valid status and that needs to be sorted out.
Lets make a list of DMVs not accepting pending 485 as valid form.
This happened in Wayne , NJ.
I too will be going for the renewal soon. Did anyone else faced similar situtation. If yes, how did they resolve?
We must get this addressed. Write to the DMV to sort this out. Pending 485 is a valid status and that needs to be sorted out.
Lets make a list of DMVs not accepting pending 485 as valid form.
va_dude
03-31 01:11 PM
sorry to hear about ur situation.
but just a quick note, it is ridiculously expensive to have a child in this country without your wife being covered by med insurance. the costs can be too high. so try to get insurance for them asap.
good luck.
but just a quick note, it is ridiculously expensive to have a child in this country without your wife being covered by med insurance. the costs can be too high. so try to get insurance for them asap.
good luck.
more...
dilipb
10-28 11:34 PM
All u require is
- take the EAD cards
- take some ID like drivers license or passport
- fill this form
Thats it....
http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf
- take the EAD cards
- take some ID like drivers license or passport
- fill this form
Thats it....
http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf
2010 hot Nicki Minaj – Super Bass
chanduv23
09-25 10:29 AM
http://www.reason.com/images/07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad.jpg
Enjoy
Excellent - explains everything
Enjoy
Excellent - explains everything
more...
Maverick1
10-22 01:51 PM
That is true but I want one of them to be rejected and by not responding to FP and stopping payment on checks I am trying to exactly that.
I think it is always better to come clean and withdraw one of the applications. It is not a good idea to let them REJECT one. They may have two different A numbers, but both are with same name and if you don't attend finger printing that might cause a bad remark (Who knows what happens behind the scenes :( ). Consult a good immigration attorney and follow his/her advise.
I think it is always better to come clean and withdraw one of the applications. It is not a good idea to let them REJECT one. They may have two different A numbers, but both are with same name and if you don't attend finger printing that might cause a bad remark (Who knows what happens behind the scenes :( ). Consult a good immigration attorney and follow his/her advise.
hair Nicki Minaj quot;Super Bassquot;
Michael chertoff
12-17 10:13 AM
What is the reason, Did u use AC21
more...
reddymjm
09-17 09:07 AM
When AP is approved, you get 3 copies. I went twice on intl trips and each time they took a copy. I am left with 1 copy of the AP.
Now I need to go on one last intl trip (I have applied for renewal). I just have one copy of AP with me.
How does it work? Will the officer just stamp the AP and make a copy?
AP is like a VISA. Not all of us got 3 copies. Some of us got only 2 copies.
I entered US(Detroit) from Canada. My wife needed to use AP and I still had valid H1b stamped. Still they made me use the AP. I left my other 2 copies at home thinking I do not have to use my AP. Then the officer explained that they need all the copies of the AP (atleast 2). They will stamp AP on the passport valid from 1 year from the date of entry irrespective of the expiry date on AP. They will return us a copy of the AP with the same expiry date on it. What he told me is even if I dont have any more copies I can still travel(not just b/w US and Canada) till the expiry date stamped on the passport and next time I will be getting I94 till that date not one year.
Hope it helps.
Now I need to go on one last intl trip (I have applied for renewal). I just have one copy of AP with me.
How does it work? Will the officer just stamp the AP and make a copy?
AP is like a VISA. Not all of us got 3 copies. Some of us got only 2 copies.
I entered US(Detroit) from Canada. My wife needed to use AP and I still had valid H1b stamped. Still they made me use the AP. I left my other 2 copies at home thinking I do not have to use my AP. Then the officer explained that they need all the copies of the AP (atleast 2). They will stamp AP on the passport valid from 1 year from the date of entry irrespective of the expiry date on AP. They will return us a copy of the AP with the same expiry date on it. What he told me is even if I dont have any more copies I can still travel(not just b/w US and Canada) till the expiry date stamped on the passport and next time I will be getting I94 till that date not one year.
Hope it helps.
hot Nicki Minaj Super Bass
VenuK
07-09 11:29 PM
--H1-B Case History--
Had H1 with company X from June 04 to Dec 07. Applied for extension in Jun 07.
Got RFE in Feb 08, received Denial on May 2nd, 08.had 2 options at that moment
(1) Make an appeal ( which i did)
(2) Leave the country in 30 days. ( which i obviously not choosen)
Made appeal. same time applied for H1-B Transfer with Company Y with Premium Processing
on May 29th,2008 through consular processing. Received Approval Notice on Jun 6th, 2008
with Same I-94 number that of company X. I have to get visa stamped with
company Y asap.
--Points to be noted--
(1) paystubb are still generated with company X till current date.
(2) passport coming to expiration on March, 2009
(3) I'm currently working at the client site.(started since Sep, 07)
(4) Did Masters from Jan 2001 to Dec 2003
--PIMS Verification--
I heard new process being put in place.
does any one knows the email id, phone number or fax to whom i should send the I-797 for Verification process. Planning to go Tijuana, Mexico.
--Questions--
Does any one can advice who have gone (or) is under similar situation
on the following things?
(1) Is it legal to work in current situation that I'm in
(2) how good are my chances for getting visa stamped in Tijuana,Mexico.
(3) Planning to go for stamping in Next couple of months. kindly let me know if any one
wants to join me for getting stamping done in Tijuana, Mexico.
(4) Additional information in this related is more than welcome
(5) What could be the potential questions that can be asked during stamping interview?
Had H1 with company X from June 04 to Dec 07. Applied for extension in Jun 07.
Got RFE in Feb 08, received Denial on May 2nd, 08.had 2 options at that moment
(1) Make an appeal ( which i did)
(2) Leave the country in 30 days. ( which i obviously not choosen)
Made appeal. same time applied for H1-B Transfer with Company Y with Premium Processing
on May 29th,2008 through consular processing. Received Approval Notice on Jun 6th, 2008
with Same I-94 number that of company X. I have to get visa stamped with
company Y asap.
--Points to be noted--
(1) paystubb are still generated with company X till current date.
(2) passport coming to expiration on March, 2009
(3) I'm currently working at the client site.(started since Sep, 07)
(4) Did Masters from Jan 2001 to Dec 2003
--PIMS Verification--
I heard new process being put in place.
does any one knows the email id, phone number or fax to whom i should send the I-797 for Verification process. Planning to go Tijuana, Mexico.
--Questions--
Does any one can advice who have gone (or) is under similar situation
on the following things?
(1) Is it legal to work in current situation that I'm in
(2) how good are my chances for getting visa stamped in Tijuana,Mexico.
(3) Planning to go for stamping in Next couple of months. kindly let me know if any one
wants to join me for getting stamping done in Tijuana, Mexico.
(4) Additional information in this related is more than welcome
(5) What could be the potential questions that can be asked during stamping interview?
more...
house Nicki Minaj finally dropped
number30
02-26 10:13 PM
Thank you. I was going to reply to Dealsnet and state that, but you beat me to it.
On a side note, i was going to add that out of status itself does not determine the start of the clock, for the 3 and 10 year bans, .. that would be "unlawful stay" determined from the expiration of the date on the I-94 OR an administrative determination of unlawful stay based on when they discovered the out of status situation. However, for the above purposes [GC based on marriage], this point is moot.
Moreover 3/10 ban will apply only when someone is trying to re-enter US. That means if you stay in US until you get green card ban will never affect.
On a side note, i was going to add that out of status itself does not determine the start of the clock, for the 3 and 10 year bans, .. that would be "unlawful stay" determined from the expiration of the date on the I-94 OR an administrative determination of unlawful stay based on when they discovered the out of status situation. However, for the above purposes [GC based on marriage], this point is moot.
Moreover 3/10 ban will apply only when someone is trying to re-enter US. That means if you stay in US until you get green card ban will never affect.
tattoo nicki minaj super bass album
anilvt
09-06 12:36 AM
similar thing happened to my friend when he got his green card ...it had some women picture on it ...he called them and told to return the GC and they attach his picture on it ....
take it easy change the title to wrong pic on AP ...blunder is very emotional word
take it easy change the title to wrong pic on AP ...blunder is very emotional word
more...
pictures nicki minaj hair in super bass
prinive
03-27 12:26 PM
Thanks Buddy...
Any one else ...
I am celebrating the good news from IV by pledging $100 to IV. Any one care to up the ante on this?
My Receipt ID: 54118296K6578915K
Any one else ...
I am celebrating the good news from IV by pledging $100 to IV. Any one care to up the ante on this?
My Receipt ID: 54118296K6578915K
dresses here#39;s a Nicki Minaj alter
roseball
10-16 05:05 PM
Hi,
My green card petition was applied under "Computer and Information Systems Manager" job title. Recently, I get a full-time job offer from another employer with a much lesser salary but, considering the current job market and economy, I've no other option but to accept it. There's one little kink in this new situation: the title for the job I've applied for labor does not match with the one I'm offered (Software Engineer)
These are my questions:
1. Do I really need to apply AC21 now?
2. If I apply AC21 with Software Engineer title what could be the consequence
3. What if I try to get a letter from my new employer with job title as Computer and Information Systems Manager or some similar title. Do you think it'll work?
If anyone has better idea, please advise me. I'd really appreciate all your help.
Thank you very much...
Your new job duties and job code should be the same/similar to the one on your LC. You should pay more attention towards job duties and job code for AC21. Matching job titles are good to have, but not a must for AC21.
My green card petition was applied under "Computer and Information Systems Manager" job title. Recently, I get a full-time job offer from another employer with a much lesser salary but, considering the current job market and economy, I've no other option but to accept it. There's one little kink in this new situation: the title for the job I've applied for labor does not match with the one I'm offered (Software Engineer)
These are my questions:
1. Do I really need to apply AC21 now?
2. If I apply AC21 with Software Engineer title what could be the consequence
3. What if I try to get a letter from my new employer with job title as Computer and Information Systems Manager or some similar title. Do you think it'll work?
If anyone has better idea, please advise me. I'd really appreciate all your help.
Thank you very much...
Your new job duties and job code should be the same/similar to the one on your LC. You should pay more attention towards job duties and job code for AC21. Matching job titles are good to have, but not a must for AC21.
more...
makeup 2011 nicki minaj super bass
Eberth
10-28 10:12 PM
hehe, ok lost!
yeah, and i have lots of trouble on getting new clients, because im a 16 years old high school student, and because of that, people think that is too much money for someone of my age, and others think that a person of my age cant do a professional job, that's the main problem i have :( and i dont know how to go and offer my services,i dont know even what to say ( maybe what reverendflash said with the sign hehe,:smirk: ) also if you could give me some advices, on how to offer webdesign, i'd be greatfull ;)
yeah, and i have lots of trouble on getting new clients, because im a 16 years old high school student, and because of that, people think that is too much money for someone of my age, and others think that a person of my age cant do a professional job, that's the main problem i have :( and i dont know how to go and offer my services,i dont know even what to say ( maybe what reverendflash said with the sign hehe,:smirk: ) also if you could give me some advices, on how to offer webdesign, i'd be greatfull ;)
girlfriend Nicki Minaj – Super bass
Kapils573
10-07 03:07 PM
I had a OHIO driver's license for last 5 yrs and moved as a consultant. I worked in Memphis,Texas and PA. I did not change my OHIO license in Memphis and Texas as the duration of the projects were short. Finally I did change to PA drivers license. When I did change to PA driver's license ,I took with me my apartment lease copy, Telephone bill, H1B-I797 and OHIO driver's license.
I was able to change it to PA driver's license. Maybe if u show more supporting documents , or go to another license bureau in Maryland they will change the license for u
Hope that helps
Kapil
I was able to change it to PA driver's license. Maybe if u show more supporting documents , or go to another license bureau in Maryland they will change the license for u
Hope that helps
Kapil
hairstyles nicki minaj super bass
tiinap
02-01 08:22 PM
Right, the Senate is definitely the key. Because after all, right now we have a president who has always supported expanding legal immigration and look how far that has taken us in the last 8 years :).
Still, the President has important powers:
(S)he can set the course on this issue, and continue to push for CIR and shape the discussion in a positive direction, or just neglect this topic.
More importantly, the President has veto powers. If our president will be Romney, I'm afraid he'd veto bills that do anything to expand legal immigration, and just ramble on about the fence. If our president will be Hillary, I'm afraid she might gladly sign a bill that wipes out the H1B program (she has said that she wants to have a temporary worker program for agriculture only) or cuts back on EB immigration even further.
I think our fates do depend to some extent on who the next President will be. I'm just curious who should I be rooting for and who should I recommend that my U.S. citizen friends vote for, because it's hard to make sense of their message.
Still, the President has important powers:
(S)he can set the course on this issue, and continue to push for CIR and shape the discussion in a positive direction, or just neglect this topic.
More importantly, the President has veto powers. If our president will be Romney, I'm afraid he'd veto bills that do anything to expand legal immigration, and just ramble on about the fence. If our president will be Hillary, I'm afraid she might gladly sign a bill that wipes out the H1B program (she has said that she wants to have a temporary worker program for agriculture only) or cuts back on EB immigration even further.
I think our fates do depend to some extent on who the next President will be. I'm just curious who should I be rooting for and who should I recommend that my U.S. citizen friends vote for, because it's hard to make sense of their message.
njdude26
07-19 03:57 PM
My attorney today informed me just a week after he sent an email to them saying that case was closed in error they replied back saying they are reopening the case. wow that was fast...
chanduv23
01-14 03:59 PM
Folks, lets use this thread to post information about how to help the victims of Haitian earthquake.
Posts can be links to organizations where we can donate money or food or clothes.
If you have done something please post on this thread
Lets keep this thread alive and on top
Posts can be links to organizations where we can donate money or food or clothes.
If you have done something please post on this thread
Lets keep this thread alive and on top
沒有留言:
張貼留言