eb3_nepa
07-12 04:49 PM
The FBI name check is a bottleneck agreed. BUTTT It has NOTHING to do with the recent VB fiasco!
Some people were approved by the USCIS even WITHOUT the name checks. This is entirely a US Dept of State vs USCIS mess.
Some people were approved by the USCIS even WITHOUT the name checks. This is entirely a US Dept of State vs USCIS mess.
wallpaper SKin case for iPhone 4
Bolt
04-23 11:48 AM
Hi Guys,
I got the good news to share every one. got the approval . its wonderful
Hi ,
congrats! did you get an approval i.e 797 with i-94 or without it ? am in the same situation, my previous h1b was denied on mar10th 2009 (which was filed on march 24th 2008). i had a transfer to another company thru premium processing on 30th of march 2009 and got approval on april 21st.
Please do reply.
I got the good news to share every one. got the approval . its wonderful
Hi ,
congrats! did you get an approval i.e 797 with i-94 or without it ? am in the same situation, my previous h1b was denied on mar10th 2009 (which was filed on march 24th 2008). i had a transfer to another company thru premium processing on 30th of march 2009 and got approval on april 21st.
Please do reply.
larryking
10-22 06:55 PM
485Mbe4001 thanks for your reply. If you look at visa bulletin - Priority date for EB 3 is 1 Aug 2002. So from your reply, I gather, that they would look at processing all the applications they have on file from 2002 upto 2007 for "Latvia". And only if they end up with some visa numbers remaining due to lack of applicants, will those number be transferred to other countries.... Right??
2011 Unlike the common iPhone 4
DSLStart
07-25 09:51 AM
I too received an email couple of days back that my 140 which was approved in Dec 05 has been transfered from VSC to TSC. Wonder whats going on :confused:
more...
gccovet
05-08 02:31 PM
:confused:
I am changing job and moving to EAD from h1b. My 140 is approved and 485 has been pending more than 180 days. I am in EB2 category.
Question 1 - New employer wants to inform USCIS about job change and I dont want to do so as it just might delay AOS process? suggestions/thoughsts?
Question 2 - New employer wants to apply for EAD and AP via corporate attorney and I prefer that my attorney do that but if i will have no choice I will have to give up BUT can corporate lawyers apply for my EAD and AP without me changing my legal rep with USCIS?
Question 3 - The job title was "Sr Systems Analyst" and now it would be "System Quality Analyst 5" 5 is the highest level in this company after which it goes to Tech. Manager. I dont see issue with the title...do you see any issue? (job description are similar-I would say about 70%)
Question 4 - Salary at the time of filing 140 was 60k offered for the Sr. System Analyst position and now with the new job is 100k. Can that be a problem?
Hi, I am not an expert, quoting from things I have read in the past.
Ans 1: Notifying or not notifying about job change should not delay AOS process. It might help that you might not get a RFE. People on IV and RK forum have mixed views on this. Some choose to notify some do not. In case you do not notify, you might get an RFE asking for pay stub and current company. I know Shila Murthy and some other lawyers prefer to notify.
Ans 2: Your corporate lawyer can apply, they will have to get a G28 filled out and signed from you.
Ans 3: As of now, using AC21, job title is not a problem at all. What matters is, job description, should be same or similar (definition on same/similar not clear yet- may be very soon). If the job description is very similar then it should not be a problem.
Ans 4: If salary is more then it is not a problem, should not be less then specified in I-140/LC.
Again, I don't consider myself an expert. so take this with a pinch of salt.
Good luck.
GCCovet
I am changing job and moving to EAD from h1b. My 140 is approved and 485 has been pending more than 180 days. I am in EB2 category.
Question 1 - New employer wants to inform USCIS about job change and I dont want to do so as it just might delay AOS process? suggestions/thoughsts?
Question 2 - New employer wants to apply for EAD and AP via corporate attorney and I prefer that my attorney do that but if i will have no choice I will have to give up BUT can corporate lawyers apply for my EAD and AP without me changing my legal rep with USCIS?
Question 3 - The job title was "Sr Systems Analyst" and now it would be "System Quality Analyst 5" 5 is the highest level in this company after which it goes to Tech. Manager. I dont see issue with the title...do you see any issue? (job description are similar-I would say about 70%)
Question 4 - Salary at the time of filing 140 was 60k offered for the Sr. System Analyst position and now with the new job is 100k. Can that be a problem?
Hi, I am not an expert, quoting from things I have read in the past.
Ans 1: Notifying or not notifying about job change should not delay AOS process. It might help that you might not get a RFE. People on IV and RK forum have mixed views on this. Some choose to notify some do not. In case you do not notify, you might get an RFE asking for pay stub and current company. I know Shila Murthy and some other lawyers prefer to notify.
Ans 2: Your corporate lawyer can apply, they will have to get a G28 filled out and signed from you.
Ans 3: As of now, using AC21, job title is not a problem at all. What matters is, job description, should be same or similar (definition on same/similar not clear yet- may be very soon). If the job description is very similar then it should not be a problem.
Ans 4: If salary is more then it is not a problem, should not be less then specified in I-140/LC.
Again, I don't consider myself an expert. so take this with a pinch of salt.
Good luck.
GCCovet
GCBy3000
05-19 09:35 AM
Yes, keep all you honest opinion within your self until your shackles are removed. We all know the visa status H1B is exploting point for some consulting firms and employers. Knowing this I do not understand what is the need of expressing "my desire NOT to stay with him any longer than I need to"
Keep this desire within your self and keep the GC ball rolling until you get some command. But you have already said so. With my experience, I would say the employers and attorneys have very good relationship which they are supposed to have. With this relationship, they will find all the means to do whatever they desire to do. So be patient and butter your employer and get your job done.
Patience wins in this GC process.
Keep this desire within your self and keep the GC ball rolling until you get some command. But you have already said so. With my experience, I would say the employers and attorneys have very good relationship which they are supposed to have. With this relationship, they will find all the means to do whatever they desire to do. So be patient and butter your employer and get your job done.
Patience wins in this GC process.
more...
vishals_me
04-17 03:04 PM
Hi,
Even i reviewed the list of NOC on their site but I don't see any chages. But i could see one thing on that pdf list is the date still says February 5, 2009. So it;s not updated as per April 15,2009 if they revised the list.
So need to find out wether they revised the list of NOC or not..
any one knows???
Thanks in advanc,
Vishal.
Even i reviewed the list of NOC on their site but I don't see any chages. But i could see one thing on that pdf list is the date still says February 5, 2009. So it;s not updated as per April 15,2009 if they revised the list.
So need to find out wether they revised the list of NOC or not..
any one knows???
Thanks in advanc,
Vishal.
2010 iphone 4 covers.
desiin_va
06-13 09:35 AM
Check with a good attorney but as far i know, if you get paid by the for-profit consulting company (even if they place you at non-profit org), you will be subjected to H1B cap.
If your H1B paperwork (i-765) is directly from a non-profit org (like Univ, Govt, etc), then only are you cap exempt.
Also remember, if you ever want to txfr from non-profit to for-profit, you will be again subjected to cap. This assumes you were never counted against the for-profit company cap in any fiscal year quota.
I concur, though your physical presence is at non-profit org you are being paid by the consulting company which is for-profit which means you come under H1B cap. I currently work for non-profit, used to work for a consulting comp. PM me if u need more info.
If your H1B paperwork (i-765) is directly from a non-profit org (like Univ, Govt, etc), then only are you cap exempt.
Also remember, if you ever want to txfr from non-profit to for-profit, you will be again subjected to cap. This assumes you were never counted against the for-profit company cap in any fiscal year quota.
I concur, though your physical presence is at non-profit org you are being paid by the consulting company which is for-profit which means you come under H1B cap. I currently work for non-profit, used to work for a consulting comp. PM me if u need more info.
more...
singhsa3
07-20 04:44 PM
I will try to answer to the best of my knowledge but I am not an attorney.
Your case fall in family based 2A preference, the PD date on which is July'02, which implies people in your situation who applied in July'02 are being adjudicated. So obviously, thats not an option for you, if you want to come immediately.
You child can come here on vistor visa. The issue you will run into is that even though visa can be granted for 10 years but she cannot stay for longer than 6 months at a stretch and some months gap before re-entring in the USA.
Second option is writting to consulate and department of state to issue visa on compassionate grounds. Issuance of such visa is rare but they are there. You probably will need to show extreme hardship and very few (even attorneys) are in position to advise you on this matter.
So my suggestion will be to go to your nearset consulate and discuss the matter with consulate officer/visa officer.
I and my spouse both have green card. We have a kid who was born in INDIA. He has not visited USA till now. The kid is about 2 years.
We are planning to bring the kid by end of this year to USA.
So what visa should we apply for him we are not sure :confused:
A friend told that he had a baby born to him in india and came to usa with in the 1st 6 month to USA and since both parents were having green card, at port of entry in USA, the kid also got greencard for 5 years this was couple of years back.
But in my case, the kid is 2 years AND also not sure what is the procedure now. Is it still true by default the kids automatically gets the green card at port of entry (Is there any age limit I hope may be till < 13 yrs) if parents posses valid green card. Please help me in this situation.
Thanks in advance, ;)
Your case fall in family based 2A preference, the PD date on which is July'02, which implies people in your situation who applied in July'02 are being adjudicated. So obviously, thats not an option for you, if you want to come immediately.
You child can come here on vistor visa. The issue you will run into is that even though visa can be granted for 10 years but she cannot stay for longer than 6 months at a stretch and some months gap before re-entring in the USA.
Second option is writting to consulate and department of state to issue visa on compassionate grounds. Issuance of such visa is rare but they are there. You probably will need to show extreme hardship and very few (even attorneys) are in position to advise you on this matter.
So my suggestion will be to go to your nearset consulate and discuss the matter with consulate officer/visa officer.
I and my spouse both have green card. We have a kid who was born in INDIA. He has not visited USA till now. The kid is about 2 years.
We are planning to bring the kid by end of this year to USA.
So what visa should we apply for him we are not sure :confused:
A friend told that he had a baby born to him in india and came to usa with in the 1st 6 month to USA and since both parents were having green card, at port of entry in USA, the kid also got greencard for 5 years this was couple of years back.
But in my case, the kid is 2 years AND also not sure what is the procedure now. Is it still true by default the kids automatically gets the green card at port of entry (Is there any age limit I hope may be till < 13 yrs) if parents posses valid green card. Please help me in this situation.
Thanks in advance, ;)
hair in your new iphone 4.
hopein07
02-09 10:26 AM
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Breaking_news_Indian_docs_lose_case_against_Britis h_govt/articleshow/1586856.cms
Anybody thinking of trying a lawsuit in US should better think again. It's of NO USE. It will only aggravate the average Americans and you will lose whatever little support we have from moderates. Lawsuit will yeild nothing.
We must try Gandhian approach of appealing to their innate sense of justice.
Only President bush can do something if somehow he can be convinced.
MIXED OUTCOME, WIN ONE PART, LOSE OTHER PART:
From NDTV : http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070032358&ch=11/9/2007%209:16:00%20PM
Indian doctors on HSMP visas wishing to train or work in Britain won a major court ruling in their favour on Friday.
Judges have decided that employers will now have to treat Indian doctors on par with doctors from Europe.
The court case revolved around a challenge to a health ministry guidance that would have compelled prospective employers such as hospitals to discriminate against non-European candidates, first by establishing that their skills were not found in Europe and then, if selected, to apply for work permits for them.
However, in a unanimous ruling, three judges of the Appeals Court called the ministry guidance ''illegal'', sparking instant celebrations among campaigners of the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO) on Diwali day.
''This is a great ruling. We are absolutely ecstatic, and feel exuberant,'' BAPIO's Dr Sheethal Mathew said.
''Our doctors from India, Pakistan or Sri Lanka will now be able to compete with European doctors on an equal footing. Employers cannot discriminate against us now,'' he said.
The ruling is expected to immediately benefit some 10-15,000 doctors of South Asian origin, who are living in Britain and have been eagerly awaiting the outcome of the case.
However, the campaigners lost a second challenge - against the British government's abrupt changes to the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) last year. BAPIO challenged the changes on the grounds that their members were not consulted.
But Mathew said BAPIO will not take any further legal action.
''About 5,000 doctors were affected by the changes, and they have left already because they knew they had no choice.''
The British government introduced the HSMP scheme in 2002, offering workers such as accountants, doctors and scientists the right to settle down and work in Britain. Some 49,000 people took up the offer.
But the changes ostensibly to guard against 'abuse' of the system meant that those who had already come in on HSMP visas were faced with sudden restrictions in the job market.
Their employers would have to prove that the qualifications and skills that these candidates possessed were not available among European and British candidates. And if these non-Europeans were hired, the employers would have to apply for work permits.
Anthony Robinson, a solicitor for BAPIO said: ''As is widely acknowledged, the NHS has for many years relied upon the contribution of doctors from overseas, and in particular the Indian sub-continent, in order to provide a quality service in times of shortage of British doctors.
''Now that more British graduates are coming through, the Department of Health is trying to get round the rights of HSMP doctors who have already made Britain their home because it failed to plan ahead,''he added.
The next round of hiring by the state-sector National Health Service (NHS) is expected in January-February, 2008.
Anybody thinking of trying a lawsuit in US should better think again. It's of NO USE. It will only aggravate the average Americans and you will lose whatever little support we have from moderates. Lawsuit will yeild nothing.
We must try Gandhian approach of appealing to their innate sense of justice.
Only President bush can do something if somehow he can be convinced.
MIXED OUTCOME, WIN ONE PART, LOSE OTHER PART:
From NDTV : http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070032358&ch=11/9/2007%209:16:00%20PM
Indian doctors on HSMP visas wishing to train or work in Britain won a major court ruling in their favour on Friday.
Judges have decided that employers will now have to treat Indian doctors on par with doctors from Europe.
The court case revolved around a challenge to a health ministry guidance that would have compelled prospective employers such as hospitals to discriminate against non-European candidates, first by establishing that their skills were not found in Europe and then, if selected, to apply for work permits for them.
However, in a unanimous ruling, three judges of the Appeals Court called the ministry guidance ''illegal'', sparking instant celebrations among campaigners of the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO) on Diwali day.
''This is a great ruling. We are absolutely ecstatic, and feel exuberant,'' BAPIO's Dr Sheethal Mathew said.
''Our doctors from India, Pakistan or Sri Lanka will now be able to compete with European doctors on an equal footing. Employers cannot discriminate against us now,'' he said.
The ruling is expected to immediately benefit some 10-15,000 doctors of South Asian origin, who are living in Britain and have been eagerly awaiting the outcome of the case.
However, the campaigners lost a second challenge - against the British government's abrupt changes to the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) last year. BAPIO challenged the changes on the grounds that their members were not consulted.
But Mathew said BAPIO will not take any further legal action.
''About 5,000 doctors were affected by the changes, and they have left already because they knew they had no choice.''
The British government introduced the HSMP scheme in 2002, offering workers such as accountants, doctors and scientists the right to settle down and work in Britain. Some 49,000 people took up the offer.
But the changes ostensibly to guard against 'abuse' of the system meant that those who had already come in on HSMP visas were faced with sudden restrictions in the job market.
Their employers would have to prove that the qualifications and skills that these candidates possessed were not available among European and British candidates. And if these non-Europeans were hired, the employers would have to apply for work permits.
Anthony Robinson, a solicitor for BAPIO said: ''As is widely acknowledged, the NHS has for many years relied upon the contribution of doctors from overseas, and in particular the Indian sub-continent, in order to provide a quality service in times of shortage of British doctors.
''Now that more British graduates are coming through, the Department of Health is trying to get round the rights of HSMP doctors who have already made Britain their home because it failed to plan ahead,''he added.
The next round of hiring by the state-sector National Health Service (NHS) is expected in January-February, 2008.
more...
Munshi75
09-27 05:49 PM
Try in any universities for a job or even in schools .I am sure you will come across an ample of opportunities. Pay may not be attractive nevertheless, will you keep to afloat .
And next option would be (if have your GRE Valid), apply in some small schools for a similar but different program now and take admission in Jan 08. Search for small schools only.
Hope this would help . Try first option , bet u will find soon.
And next option would be (if have your GRE Valid), apply in some small schools for a similar but different program now and take admission in Jan 08. Search for small schools only.
Hope this would help . Try first option , bet u will find soon.
hot SKIN FOR IPHONE 4 | Image
bpratap
01-26 09:35 PM
I don't think all EB1's are PhD's. so if this bill is specifically for PhD's then its not gonna help EB categories.
Many of the EB1's I know are some global managers (by document) from some outsourcing companies with the same Educational / technical skills as many of us in EB 2/ EB3. after coming in on L1A they juz directly file under Eb1.
I am not trying to fire up an argument/fight. but juz the reality I know of.
Hope this bill will include People who have an MS degree . it will help clear up EB2 queue and eventually spillover the excess numbers to EB3.
Many of the EB1's I know are some global managers (by document) from some outsourcing companies with the same Educational / technical skills as many of us in EB 2/ EB3. after coming in on L1A they juz directly file under Eb1.
I am not trying to fire up an argument/fight. but juz the reality I know of.
Hope this bill will include People who have an MS degree . it will help clear up EB2 queue and eventually spillover the excess numbers to EB3.
more...
house Iphone-4-cover-case-lv-gilt-
Lill
03-03 05:31 AM
so photoshop isnt alowed? Just wondering. if not ill just do it in Flash i guess
tattoo Iphone-4-cover-case-gucci-gilt
jgh_res
05-17 10:01 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
more...
pictures Apple iPhone 4 4G Gen Black
mambarg
07-27 07:04 PM
How did the attorney sign the form when you had not signed.
I had to visit my attorney's office and sign all the paperwork in his office before he filed my app.
I belileve if the attorney is remote, then he needs to send fedex package to sign the docs.
Attorney signs only as a rep if there is legal issues or court apperance is required.
Applicants signature is used to prepare the EAD card . USCIS scans the signature of applicant.
I had to visit my attorney's office and sign all the paperwork in his office before he filed my app.
I belileve if the attorney is remote, then he needs to send fedex package to sign the docs.
Attorney signs only as a rep if there is legal issues or court apperance is required.
Applicants signature is used to prepare the EAD card . USCIS scans the signature of applicant.
dresses tested on your iphone 4 before
dvb
12-10 11:16 AM
Hi All,
Just posting my experience of traveling on AP as a reference for others:
I traveled to Japan on a business visit with all 3 copies of my AP , and on return stood in the normal visitor line. When I came up to the officer, he said I should go to the "new immigrants" line, since only those officers have the necessary parole stamps.
In the other line, the officer said it was good that I brought all three copies, since they stamp all three, keep one original for themselves and return two back. The next time I travel, they will stamp the two I have, keep one and return one to me. After that, they will stamp the one original I have left, and make copies for themselves.
The officer did not ask any special questions, except which city I stay in, the rest of it was just chit-chat.
Simple process, no hassles.
Enjoy!
Just posting my experience of traveling on AP as a reference for others:
I traveled to Japan on a business visit with all 3 copies of my AP , and on return stood in the normal visitor line. When I came up to the officer, he said I should go to the "new immigrants" line, since only those officers have the necessary parole stamps.
In the other line, the officer said it was good that I brought all three copies, since they stamp all three, keep one original for themselves and return two back. The next time I travel, they will stamp the two I have, keep one and return one to me. After that, they will stamp the one original I have left, and make copies for themselves.
The officer did not ask any special questions, except which city I stay in, the rest of it was just chit-chat.
Simple process, no hassles.
Enjoy!
more...
makeup Metal iPhone 4 Cover To Keep
bkarnik
04-20 05:29 PM
I called the CBP office at the nearest international airport and the officer said "As long as they leave the country with in 6 months they are good. I don't have to come to the airport to get it corrected". He did not ask me the I-94 numbers or any thing. He just confirmed they are here on class B2.
So what does the gurus suggest?
When it comes to immigration matters, my mantra is safe than sorry. I would still make the trip to the CBP office and get a date noted on the I-94. This way if you want to extend their stay, etc you will be covered.
So what does the gurus suggest?
When it comes to immigration matters, my mantra is safe than sorry. I would still make the trip to the CBP office and get a date noted on the I-94. This way if you want to extend their stay, etc you will be covered.
girlfriend bioserie iPhone 4 Cover
ck_b2001
07-17 07:05 PM
You need to be in US untill you recieve "Reciept of Notice". For those who filed Jul 2nd may be a special case as untill today it was thought to be rejected. In this situation i dont know how that rule will apply. On your return you have to show the 485 reciept notice along with your valid H1/H4 Visa (if Travel document is pending) to enter to US. It may mess up the database at POE if you do not mention pending 485.
I would advise you seek legal advice if you have filed on Jul 2nd and you or your spouse has or is travelled (ing) abroad.
My wife was planning on travelling next week and she has to cancell her trip to be safe.
I would advise you seek legal advice if you have filed on Jul 2nd and you or your spouse has or is travelled (ing) abroad.
My wife was planning on travelling next week and she has to cancell her trip to be safe.
hairstyles Iphone 4 wood covers , fancy
kaisersose
12-07 04:43 PM
I know you are being pointedly sarcastic at a section of green card applicants but Project Managers are not eligible for EB1. (Don't give that section any bright ideas) Only multi-national executives (VP and above are)
in addition to researchers who have exceptional track-record (no, publishing papers in IEEE digest doesn't count)
Haven't heard of EB1s getting GC in ceremonies. After all the little piece of plastic is not an award of merit or anything (even though lot of us seem to think so :D)
Sorry buddy....I know 4 of my friends who got their GCs through EB1 within a year - all project managers. The key piece of documentation required by USCIS was an official org chart from the company showing people reporting to the applicant both back in the foreign country and currenty in the US.
Now it is certainly possible that some applicants were rejected because the IO was not convinced, but I know four people who sailed through without RFEs.
in addition to researchers who have exceptional track-record (no, publishing papers in IEEE digest doesn't count)
Haven't heard of EB1s getting GC in ceremonies. After all the little piece of plastic is not an award of merit or anything (even though lot of us seem to think so :D)
Sorry buddy....I know 4 of my friends who got their GCs through EB1 within a year - all project managers. The key piece of documentation required by USCIS was an official org chart from the company showing people reporting to the applicant both back in the foreign country and currenty in the US.
Now it is certainly possible that some applicants were rejected because the IO was not convinced, but I know four people who sailed through without RFEs.
insbaby
09-26 01:29 AM
You made my day. Thanks so much. :):):):):):):)
I don't understand why people are right now so worried about priority date retrogression. If you have passed 180 days after I140 approval, go ahead, change your job and incase your 485 gets denied, reapply with new employer, with new new job description, using old PD and get GC soon as your priority date will be current. Am I missing something?
There is no way I am going to spend 6-7 years in the same job with the same title(maybe even same company).
Most of the points are true, but using the OLD PD is still a question.
People worried so much about PD, becuase of using "All Confusion 21 (AC21)". It is an "add on" item to the pending 485 cases, so it depends on the IO reviewing your case. Right now there are couple of threads in IV discussing that AC21 based denial cases.
Keep moving employer to employer and reapplying GC, may cost you a lot and you have to keep maintaining your H1B, becuase as soon as your 485 denied, your EAD becomds invalid and how will you switch your current job. Some one says MTR cost more than $600.
Then eventually this becomes your life long challenge of working on immigration matters every day.
I don't understand why people are right now so worried about priority date retrogression. If you have passed 180 days after I140 approval, go ahead, change your job and incase your 485 gets denied, reapply with new employer, with new new job description, using old PD and get GC soon as your priority date will be current. Am I missing something?
There is no way I am going to spend 6-7 years in the same job with the same title(maybe even same company).
Most of the points are true, but using the OLD PD is still a question.
People worried so much about PD, becuase of using "All Confusion 21 (AC21)". It is an "add on" item to the pending 485 cases, so it depends on the IO reviewing your case. Right now there are couple of threads in IV discussing that AC21 based denial cases.
Keep moving employer to employer and reapplying GC, may cost you a lot and you have to keep maintaining your H1B, becuase as soon as your 485 denied, your EAD becomds invalid and how will you switch your current job. Some one says MTR cost more than $600.
Then eventually this becomes your life long challenge of working on immigration matters every day.
bank_king2003
04-22 02:04 PM
So basically you are saying you cannot sue the people responsible for greencard problem.
I think the only option left is to either sue God or sue yourself for your bad luck.
Sorry if i was not clear. i meant to say that for visa recapture one cant file a lawsuit against USCIS but one can definately file a lawsuit on USCIS for following things if at all we can prove it
1) if quarterly soillover is a law and USCIS not doing it they are doing something against the law so we can file a lawsuit against it but again how can we prove that they are not doing quarterly spillover.
2) If USCIS doesnt use full numbers assigned for Green Cards and waste them you can again sue them for that but will it be succesfull or not that has to be researched.
3) That H1b employee - employer relation memo is a best example to file a lawsuit against them as there interpratation of the law was completely wrong but noone did it.
I think the only option left is to either sue God or sue yourself for your bad luck.
Sorry if i was not clear. i meant to say that for visa recapture one cant file a lawsuit against USCIS but one can definately file a lawsuit on USCIS for following things if at all we can prove it
1) if quarterly soillover is a law and USCIS not doing it they are doing something against the law so we can file a lawsuit against it but again how can we prove that they are not doing quarterly spillover.
2) If USCIS doesnt use full numbers assigned for Green Cards and waste them you can again sue them for that but will it be succesfull or not that has to be researched.
3) That H1b employee - employer relation memo is a best example to file a lawsuit against them as there interpratation of the law was completely wrong but noone did it.
No comments:
Post a Comment