logiclife
01-05 05:08 PM
As of late this morning have exceeded $6000. Its a start and we need to involve more people who are affected by retrogression.
logiclife.
logiclife.
wallpaper PIC9 17 inch mw 3 series
akred
07-25 08:04 PM
I have found that SBI is the most cost effective one. There is some inconvienience as you have to register with them, but every transfer after that can be accomplished with a fax to their offices.
eb3_nepa
04-13 08:41 PM
The following doc, 'How the senate bill becomes a law' does not mention any waiting period after President's sign the bill to become a law
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/legprocessflowchart.pdf
My point exactly.
So then maybe the wait is only the 3 months (90 days) that Sen Sessions wishes to impose, correct?
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/legprocessflowchart.pdf
My point exactly.
So then maybe the wait is only the 3 months (90 days) that Sen Sessions wishes to impose, correct?
2011 2007 Kelleners BMW 3-Series
sparky123
07-18 02:12 PM
We're running out of time. Any timely suggestions would be much appreciated.
Please help to expedite Atlanta center.
We just want to get ours filed too and join the rest of the gang in celebration :p
Please help to expedite Atlanta center.
We just want to get ours filed too and join the rest of the gang in celebration :p
more...
django.stone
02-01 03:22 PM
and congratulations!
NKR
10-13 04:18 PM
Next time I'm thinking of going Tarzan style....
They take only finger prints.. ;)
They take only finger prints.. ;)
more...
thesparky007
06-06 02:44 PM
mine are not on there?
you are kidding
you are kidding
2010 BMW 3 Series Sedan :
gc_chahiye
06-11 06:02 PM
You may port the PD as well as get 3 yrs extension based on previously approved I-140 regardless of employer as long as I-140 is not revoked.
what happens to the H1 extension if the I-140 is subsequently revoked?
what happens to the H1 extension if the I-140 is subsequently revoked?
more...
PERM12
10-25 07:01 PM
Will USCIS release updated Pending I-485 numbers as published that they will do every quarter....
hair BMW 3 Series Convertible
GotGC??
05-15 11:50 AM
Here's a rather strange and may be uncommon situation for someone I know who needs suggestions from gurus here...such huge PD movements do result in strange situations such as these :)
EB3 India Labor + I-140 certified with PD Feb 2003
EB2-140 pending at NSC hoping to port the EB3 PD date
So both cases are now current, which leads to a couple of options for AOS:
1. File based on approved EB3 (and risk a potential retrogression in future)
2. File based on pending EB2 140 before it is approved (and risk potential RFE, etc. and who knows if it would be too late to revert to the EB3)
The other option is to upgrade the EB2 140 to PP, but could you please list the relative merits of the above two options?
EB3 India Labor + I-140 certified with PD Feb 2003
EB2-140 pending at NSC hoping to port the EB3 PD date
So both cases are now current, which leads to a couple of options for AOS:
1. File based on approved EB3 (and risk a potential retrogression in future)
2. File based on pending EB2 140 before it is approved (and risk potential RFE, etc. and who knows if it would be too late to revert to the EB3)
The other option is to upgrade the EB2 140 to PP, but could you please list the relative merits of the above two options?
more...
chanduv23
03-03 12:12 PM
Thanks for your quick response. I might as well ask one more question that's in my mind. Did you go thru the company's attorney or you hired yourself? I really don't trust my company's attorney as they work for the best interest of the company rather then the employees...may not be the norm but mostly its that way.
Could you PM me if you know good attorney's other then Ms Murthy (cause they are expensive)
Thanks.
I used my personal Attorney from time of filing 485 - she worked with me through the AC21 process and till date represents me now also. It is very much advisable to have personal Attorney who represents you.
Could you PM me if you know good attorney's other then Ms Murthy (cause they are expensive)
Thanks.
I used my personal Attorney from time of filing 485 - she worked with me through the AC21 process and till date represents me now also. It is very much advisable to have personal Attorney who represents you.
hot BMW 3 Series Touring
dilbert_cal
04-15 12:04 PM
If your employer remains the same , the job remains the same and the job location is only changing by 8 miles, you have nothing to worry about. It will NOT cause any issues.
Btw - Did you talk with your company lawyer and/or your manager about this ? What is their opinion.
ps :- You have two threads - please delete one of them or edit the post so that two threads do not go in parallel.
Btw - Did you talk with your company lawyer and/or your manager about this ? What is their opinion.
ps :- You have two threads - please delete one of them or edit the post so that two threads do not go in parallel.
more...
house HAMANN ”Thunder” (BMW 3-Series
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.
tattoo 2010 BMW 3 Series Convertible
H1Girl
10-13 03:05 PM
...
But never a tie.
Wrong... who said Tie is Not OK? Some officers wear Tie...
But never a tie.
Wrong... who said Tie is Not OK? Some officers wear Tie...
more...
pictures BMW 3-Series Coupe
cygent
11-12 06:33 PM
Is that even if I-140 is not approved (pending), after I-485 is pending for 180 days, one can change jobs using the EAD?
http://www.visalaw.com/05may4/2may405.html
Read about the AC21 analysis - You can change with either H1 or EAD. You can also do so before 180 days, but not without some risk (case by case basis).
http://www.visalaw.com/05may4/2may405.html
Read about the AC21 analysis - You can change with either H1 or EAD. You can also do so before 180 days, but not without some risk (case by case basis).
dresses Bmw 3 Series 2012 Model
mantagon
07-23 11:02 AM
is in RED.
Thank you for all the responses.
One question remains though that what does it mean when the I-94 says paroled till 3rd March 2009?
Not much, really!
How does one prove the legal status in the country?
Since your wife entered the US by showing AP, her legal status is "Pending AOS" and the proof is the USCIS receipt notice of I-485 that you filed for her!
Thank you for all the responses.
One question remains though that what does it mean when the I-94 says paroled till 3rd March 2009?
Not much, really!
How does one prove the legal status in the country?
Since your wife entered the US by showing AP, her legal status is "Pending AOS" and the proof is the USCIS receipt notice of I-485 that you filed for her!
more...
makeup 2011 BMW 3 Series M-Sport
RDB
07-12 09:31 PM
I e-filed EAD in June 2009 and the case is at NSC.....they did sent me some notice on Friday - which I am yet to receive - not sure if it is going to be a FP notice or request for evidence.
girlfriend 2007 Hamann BMW 3-series Coupe
gondalguru
07-08 09:40 PM
BUT: mine is an NIW case so i think she wanted to prove continuous service since 2003 in this job (under served area), she also asked the employer for a payroll printout since january.
Hi Paskal:
I am NIW physician, EB2 India, PD 9/2004. Already completed 3 yrs and 10 months into MUA service. I changed the job in the same MUA 3 months ago.
Do I have to file an amended I-140 or no? I contacted two lawyers on this issue. One says yes and second says no. The second lawyer who is from very reputed law firm -- (shusterman.com) says u only need to respond to RFE for 1 yr and 5 yr of service and not send an updated I-140 especially if you stay in the same MUA / state. I don't know whom to believe? Any suggestions.
I went through NIW regulations published in federal register many times... but in the register it is not clear if you need to file amended I-140 if your first I-140 is self petition and you didn't change the underserved area.
Hi Paskal:
I am NIW physician, EB2 India, PD 9/2004. Already completed 3 yrs and 10 months into MUA service. I changed the job in the same MUA 3 months ago.
Do I have to file an amended I-140 or no? I contacted two lawyers on this issue. One says yes and second says no. The second lawyer who is from very reputed law firm -- (shusterman.com) says u only need to respond to RFE for 1 yr and 5 yr of service and not send an updated I-140 especially if you stay in the same MUA / state. I don't know whom to believe? Any suggestions.
I went through NIW regulations published in federal register many times... but in the register it is not clear if you need to file amended I-140 if your first I-140 is self petition and you didn't change the underserved area.
hairstyles BMW 3 Series Cars Wallpapers
jonty_11
08-13 06:40 PM
just read teh 3rd post above urs...phew!!! that was tiring wasnt it...
fundo14
10-15 02:52 PM
I don't think it has anything to do with H1. I think its just a mistake on their part that they issued this to derivative instead of principal applicant. This is because they are asking for intended permanent employer letter and that terms of LC /I-140 is same. This seems typical of standard employment letter RFE that is issued to the principal applicant.
Is there a way you contact the IO to get confirmation if the RFE is for you or principal applicant? Do keep us updated on how your attorney plans to respond to this.
My Attorney is preparing the reply explaining my derivative applicant status, for all others docs like W2's, Tax returns etc. I am anyway submitting.
Is there a way you contact the IO to get confirmation if the RFE is for you or principal applicant? Do keep us updated on how your attorney plans to respond to this.
My Attorney is preparing the reply explaining my derivative applicant status, for all others docs like W2's, Tax returns etc. I am anyway submitting.
mg_chase
12-24 10:13 AM
Guys. Assuming the same set of conditions as being discussed in this thread (Intent to change employers, I-140 already approved etc..)... Would I be able to retain my PD even if I change my field when I move to a new employer (shift from IT to Marketing after getting my MBA).
Any help would be highly appreciated. Thanks.
Any help would be highly appreciated. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment