bluez25
08-26 02:57 PM
Category EB2
LC PD: FEB-2006
LC AD: Mar-2006
I-140 FD: 23-May-2006
I-140 RD/ND: 25-May-2006
I-140 LUD: 29-July-2006
I-140 RFE : 15 November 2006
I-140 Responded: 14 December 2006
I-140 AD: 11 Jan 2007
DS 230 Received in April 2007
DS 230 Submitted to NVC in May 2007
NVC forwarded the case to Chennai on June 5th 2007
chennai appointment August 11th
POE August 20th
Completed and waiting for the GC card to be mailed.
LC PD: FEB-2006
LC AD: Mar-2006
I-140 FD: 23-May-2006
I-140 RD/ND: 25-May-2006
I-140 LUD: 29-July-2006
I-140 RFE : 15 November 2006
I-140 Responded: 14 December 2006
I-140 AD: 11 Jan 2007
DS 230 Received in April 2007
DS 230 Submitted to NVC in May 2007
NVC forwarded the case to Chennai on June 5th 2007
chennai appointment August 11th
POE August 20th
Completed and waiting for the GC card to be mailed.
wallpaper searching for love quotes. all
lord_labaku
09-21 10:20 PM
It may be better to rent in the near future until tax rates increase so much (which they will as someone has to pay for all these unimaginable bailouts) that it starts to make sense again to own a house so as to get the interest deducted in taxes.
Eventually there will be a demand supply equilibrium point. People got to live somewhere right?
Eventually there will be a demand supply equilibrium point. People got to live somewhere right?
tikka
05-29 09:40 PM
I went to the web fax link from the home page and sent out the only web fax that was there.
to all the states right?
i mean you can click on on each state and send one by one
this would really help. we are trying to send 3,000 faxes and your contribution would be be great!
thank you
to all the states right?
i mean you can click on on each state and send one by one
this would really help. we are trying to send 3,000 faxes and your contribution would be be great!
thank you
2011 love quotes for tumblr.
Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
more...
skodu
08-03 12:35 AM
If the ROW numbers are not used up, they could be used for EB3/EB2 for India 9and China to some extent) at the end of the Fiscal year. All these AILF/AILA lawyers are saying there is no law for doing this.
But I don't see anyone mentioning anywhere that Law prohibits explicitly using those numbers for India EB3, like they did this year. The Visa bulletin provides guidelines on the country cap, but it does not address the unused numbers condition at the end of fiscal year. SO using them for some backlogged countries is not against the law. I think it finally depends on the internal USCIS officials who interprets the law. They will do whatever they want internally within those guide lines. If nothing is written explicitly that it is against the law, then they are not breaking the law. i am not sure if my assumption and interpretation is correct. But these are my thoughts based on events. But This thread has very good observations and study of the past events. Thanks to Dollar500 and Sanju.
But I don't see anyone mentioning anywhere that Law prohibits explicitly using those numbers for India EB3, like they did this year. The Visa bulletin provides guidelines on the country cap, but it does not address the unused numbers condition at the end of fiscal year. SO using them for some backlogged countries is not against the law. I think it finally depends on the internal USCIS officials who interprets the law. They will do whatever they want internally within those guide lines. If nothing is written explicitly that it is against the law, then they are not breaking the law. i am not sure if my assumption and interpretation is correct. But these are my thoughts based on events. But This thread has very good observations and study of the past events. Thanks to Dollar500 and Sanju.
arrarrgee
07-17 02:20 PM
Its actually Her...:) Murthy is a She
Screw Murthy !!! I have never seen him picking up any good news.
Screw Murthy !!! I have never seen him picking up any good news.
more...
americandesi
08-11 03:44 PM
I noticed a flaw in GC process with respect to “Ability to pay” and “AC21”
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let’s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn’t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it’s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let’s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn’t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it’s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
2010 romantic love quotes images.
i-serf
05-24 09:38 PM
As previously mentioned in this forum, a year back (almost) when my visa stamping had not expired I had approached the MD MVA for my license. Due to a last/first name issue in my passport they declined the DL. Now after going through the name change process in US and India and getting the court order, I re-approached the MVA. After multiple levels of screening and approvals taking full 4 hrs, finally I got my 5 year license this Thursday.
MD license rules changed and there was lack of clarity for everybody some weeks back. Now there seems to be better clarity. Having SSN and i-94 is important as I felt.
If some one is in the same boat, I hope this info helped.
MD license rules changed and there was lack of clarity for everybody some weeks back. Now there seems to be better clarity. Having SSN and i-94 is important as I felt.
If some one is in the same boat, I hope this info helped.
more...
ganguteli
03-06 02:53 PM
I'll urge people from especially from California and Texas send out the letters and call up their lawmakers...Despite the Anti-immigrant climate prevailing in the country, congresswoman Zoe Logfren was able to get her bill passed on wednesday....If we can proove to them that we are not asking new green card numbers and not ask for recapturing green card numbers, they'll certainly hear us, but we need to speak up...
So your strategy is to go against her own bill to recapture greencards that she introduced for us last year.
I think this is wrong.
Recapture is a good option if you want to do it right. Otherwise all ROW will oppose you. How are you different than the guys who open threads against Telgus or EB3 vs EB2 or against Muslims.
What you are doing is only dividng the community. My collegues who are also IV members are mad reading that someone in IV is pursuing a one point agenda against ROW. We need to stop such threads. A lot of ROW are quiet members on IV forum and they will be upset.
Country caps can only be supported if there is recapture or increase in visa numbers.
So your strategy is to go against her own bill to recapture greencards that she introduced for us last year.
I think this is wrong.
Recapture is a good option if you want to do it right. Otherwise all ROW will oppose you. How are you different than the guys who open threads against Telgus or EB3 vs EB2 or against Muslims.
What you are doing is only dividng the community. My collegues who are also IV members are mad reading that someone in IV is pursuing a one point agenda against ROW. We need to stop such threads. A lot of ROW are quiet members on IV forum and they will be upset.
Country caps can only be supported if there is recapture or increase in visa numbers.
hair love quotes him. love quotes
ursosweet
07-17 05:45 PM
one silly question. How weeks do we have in hand to file 485?
no you have until august 17, 2007.
see murthy.com
pk
no you have until august 17, 2007.
see murthy.com
pk
more...
Libra
08-15 01:26 PM
Thank you nrakkati, i hope your signature and your no. of posts inspire many in this organization.
Sure...Just contributed $100, will do more in coming months.
Sure...Just contributed $100, will do more in coming months.
hot Song Love Quotes
ravindrajadeja
04-30 08:34 PM
Yes getting her here on an F1 Visa is your best option. You can hv the wedding in India but she shd not disclose abt her wedding and shd cm here on her maiden name and after afew months you can hv a registered marriage here. That is what my cousin did and they flew together to US.
Thanks Chalam.. So who sponsored for her education?..Did she mention in admission process that her fiance is going to sponsor her education and also did she mention that during the F1 visa application process?...OR she did everything on her own not related to her fiance?..
Thanks again
Thanks Chalam.. So who sponsored for her education?..Did she mention in admission process that her fiance is going to sponsor her education and also did she mention that during the F1 visa application process?...OR she did everything on her own not related to her fiance?..
Thanks again
more...
house love quotes for photos. love
CCC2006
09-26 01:21 PM
Hi All,
My visa will expire (6 yrs completion) in the month of October 2007. What can I do next. Will I get an years extension based on the Green card filing. What is the standard procedure ?
CCC2006
My visa will expire (6 yrs completion) in the month of October 2007. What can I do next. Will I get an years extension based on the Green card filing. What is the standard procedure ?
CCC2006
tattoo Love is a great feeling that
cbpds
09-01 07:12 PM
Even children in India are not looking after their parents properly as our parents looked after theirs.
more...
pictures quot;All our young lives we search
chanukya
05-17 10:35 PM
I think, if you are US Masters/above plus if you are a member of profession, then you are the luckiest person on earth...
1) Need not File LC
2)U R not counted against the Quota
A hypothetical case where it may not work
But if your are a US-MS Electrical Eng and working as Tech Lead in IT, you do not qualify for this, as Tech Lead for IT may require US MS Comp Science not US-MS Elect Eng....since you do not qualify as memeber of profession.
In which case you need to file LC, which anyway will be a problem becasue of the misamatch of the profession and your qualification.
So for those kind of mismatches it will be really difficult to justify releif under this clause.
1) Need not File LC
2)U R not counted against the Quota
A hypothetical case where it may not work
But if your are a US-MS Electrical Eng and working as Tech Lead in IT, you do not qualify for this, as Tech Lead for IT may require US MS Comp Science not US-MS Elect Eng....since you do not qualify as memeber of profession.
In which case you need to file LC, which anyway will be a problem becasue of the misamatch of the profession and your qualification.
So for those kind of mismatches it will be really difficult to justify releif under this clause.
dresses makeup cute love quotes
martinvisalaw
12-01 06:01 PM
The relevant dates, as I see it, are:
10/06: H-1B ext filed
12/06: H-1B expired, ext still pending
7/07: 485 filed.
??: H-1B ext denied?
Using INA 245k you may be able to argue that you are eligible to adjust because you may not have violated status for over 180 days, or at all, before filing the 485. Recent CIS memos on the issue of unlawful presence and related topics have made this a very complicated subject, so you really need to review the entire history with an immigration attorney in a formal consultation if you want a 2nd opinion.
10/06: H-1B ext filed
12/06: H-1B expired, ext still pending
7/07: 485 filed.
??: H-1B ext denied?
Using INA 245k you may be able to argue that you are eligible to adjust because you may not have violated status for over 180 days, or at all, before filing the 485. Recent CIS memos on the issue of unlawful presence and related topics have made this a very complicated subject, so you really need to review the entire history with an immigration attorney in a formal consultation if you want a 2nd opinion.
more...
makeup Cute+love+quotes+and+
gcloner
03-28 02:46 AM
hey! why it is like that?? last month, feb 15 08, the processing date was July 31, 2007 and how come now updated mar. 15 and the processing date became june 08, 2007??? WHY?? my friend got her gc already, hers date was july 19...she got her gc!!so wats up with that!!Do you think they will send mine (july 22)?im so upset!pls reply soon!
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
girlfriend girlfriend love quotes for him
shankar_thanu
08-03 10:01 PM
I applied in July, RD Jul 2nd. TSC
Havent seen any changes on my case status. my name check hasn't cleared yet. I called and spoke with an IO, she said name check wasnt cleared, wouldnt tell how long its been with FBI. I asked about the 180 day name check rule and she said it doesnt matter they still woudnt work on the case till NC was cleared.
Havent seen any changes on my case status. my name check hasn't cleared yet. I called and spoke with an IO, she said name check wasnt cleared, wouldnt tell how long its been with FBI. I asked about the 180 day name check rule and she said it doesnt matter they still woudnt work on the case till NC was cleared.
hairstyles hot love quotes and sayings
md2003
11-19 10:53 AM
Does it required 6 months pay stub (till Dec 29th -- for July 2nd files) or after 180 days we can move to any company whether you have last month pay stub or not. Generally most of the companies hold 15 days amount.
gxr
09-26 02:12 PM
Got EAD approved on 09/25. Filed on 07/03, RN is 09/11. - NSC, 140 still pending.
chanduv23
09-14 04:02 PM
I just _have_ to ask: what game was that?
That is Cricket.
That is Cricket.
No comments:
Post a Comment