pankajkakkar
09-14 03:59 PM
And several other anti-immigrant newsletters/blogs have been talking about this today.
This particular amendment should be brought up during lobby day. Those of us not making it to the rally should be calling Congressmen to ensure that this amendment passes!
This particular amendment should be brought up during lobby day. Those of us not making it to the rally should be calling Congressmen to ensure that this amendment passes!
wallpaper hairstyles 2011 men long.
kondur_007
03-28 10:16 PM
Was the extension with current employer applied before the expiry of your current I 94? Then only 240 days rule apply. Otherwise your are accumulating illegal presence.
You need help from a good competent attorney instead of advise from forum; your case is quite complicated. If not handled properly, you may be subject to 3/10 bar. In any case, you need a very good legal advise even before you leave US.
You need help from a good competent attorney instead of advise from forum; your case is quite complicated. If not handled properly, you may be subject to 3/10 bar. In any case, you need a very good legal advise even before you leave US.
diptam
09-07 08:14 AM
Which company will create a new PERM and new I-140 for someone in this economy ? The chances of rejection are high , the audit chance is also hanging...
That was exactly my plan 2.5 years ago when i applied for my I-140 and I-485 in 2007 (PD is Mar '05 EB3) however USCIS approved my I-140 in Jan 2009 which was too late. The economy was already in deep recession with unemployment sky rocketing. If my I-140 approval would have come 6 months earlier ( before Lehmann broke) I would have pulled through a new PERM and new I-140.
Anyway , that's what i was destined so I didn't get I-140 in regular time frame. :)
If you can try for it that will make your GC faster.
That was exactly my plan 2.5 years ago when i applied for my I-140 and I-485 in 2007 (PD is Mar '05 EB3) however USCIS approved my I-140 in Jan 2009 which was too late. The economy was already in deep recession with unemployment sky rocketing. If my I-140 approval would have come 6 months earlier ( before Lehmann broke) I would have pulled through a new PERM and new I-140.
Anyway , that's what i was destined so I didn't get I-140 in regular time frame. :)
If you can try for it that will make your GC faster.
2011 long hair styles for 2011 men.
fromnaija
12-08 04:52 PM
I think AP can also be mailed to a person who is not in the U.S. If that's the case, you could re-apply for AP once your old expires. Please verify with an attorney.
AP could be mailed but the applicant MUST be in the USA at the time of application.
AP could be mailed but the applicant MUST be in the USA at the time of application.
more...
cris
08-30 12:22 PM
outstanding answer , gg_ny ! Thank you very much
Better_Days
10-14 07:30 PM
Yes. It happened in my case as well. My I-140 was denied from NSC after having filed I-485. It was refiled (yes refiled in TSC, not MTR and got a different case number). After the I-140 denial my I-485 was also denied. Upon approval on my new I-140 the I-485 was reopened automatically. The online status had not changed from 'Denied". I was surprised when I got my second round of FP notices in August 09. Now the status says "Case has resumed processing". I would however suggest that you ask your attorney to send a letter to USCIS.
I had an I-485 pending when my first I-140 was denied. The cases ended up with AAO.
I started a new GC process in PERM and the second I-140 was approved. After approval I noticed a LUD on my pending 485. I called the 1-800 number and asked for the I-140 number underlying my I-485. To my surprise, I was given the receipt number for the second I-140. What surprised me was that the my priority date was not current.
I can only assume that when one has more than one I-140 pending with the same employer (remember that a I-140 with MTR or with AAO is considered to be pending), the first one to get approved gets linked with the I-485. CAN ANYONE CONFIRM THIS PLEASE?
The interesting thing is that the AAO woke from it's slumber and issued an RFE last week. As a result of the RFE, both my I-140 have changed their status and now show "Post Decision Activity".
I had an I-485 pending when my first I-140 was denied. The cases ended up with AAO.
I started a new GC process in PERM and the second I-140 was approved. After approval I noticed a LUD on my pending 485. I called the 1-800 number and asked for the I-140 number underlying my I-485. To my surprise, I was given the receipt number for the second I-140. What surprised me was that the my priority date was not current.
I can only assume that when one has more than one I-140 pending with the same employer (remember that a I-140 with MTR or with AAO is considered to be pending), the first one to get approved gets linked with the I-485. CAN ANYONE CONFIRM THIS PLEASE?
The interesting thing is that the AAO woke from it's slumber and issued an RFE last week. As a result of the RFE, both my I-140 have changed their status and now show "Post Decision Activity".
more...
snathan
02-15 01:54 AM
i have signed non compete , but when i signed it , he explained me that i should not go to the client through some other vendor , but i can join end client as end client has contract with Prime vendor that they can hire me full time .
But now he is claiming that i cant join full time with the client as well.
During my stay with that employer , he newer paid me on time and once he held my paycheck , just to harass me.
Do you think that these grounds fall under employee undue stress to be sufficient to turn down Non Compete in court ?
Didnt you read the paper before sign the paper. Also dont you have the copy of that
But now he is claiming that i cant join full time with the client as well.
During my stay with that employer , he newer paid me on time and once he held my paycheck , just to harass me.
Do you think that these grounds fall under employee undue stress to be sufficient to turn down Non Compete in court ?
Didnt you read the paper before sign the paper. Also dont you have the copy of that
2010 pictures hairstyles 2011 men
softwareguy
09-08 12:47 PM
Well, this is nothing new, in State Governments so many times they mandate that only companies that listed in that state have right to big contracts. What small women owned, disadvantages, veteran owned companies do is provide a front to big operators like Accenture, IBM. At times then the small company hires a Senior Manager and finally it becomes all IBM operation from India or Phillipines.
On other times the State mandates all work be done inside the State. Then you have H1 and L1 visa holders. This is business as usual.
Actually it is quite a decent engagement practice. State owned companies get a piece of the big cake and get a chance to learn from big players and state gets the quality work at a fairly decent rate. So it is all win-win. At times they mandate "In State" workers only - so that it helps the local economy... that is where the Infosys & Wipros might hurt a bit, as the cost to put guys in NYC versus Ohio from Bangalore is identical but billing rate advantage between NYC and Ohio is vastly different and they might have hire locally.
On other times the State mandates all work be done inside the State. Then you have H1 and L1 visa holders. This is business as usual.
Actually it is quite a decent engagement practice. State owned companies get a piece of the big cake and get a chance to learn from big players and state gets the quality work at a fairly decent rate. So it is all win-win. At times they mandate "In State" workers only - so that it helps the local economy... that is where the Infosys & Wipros might hurt a bit, as the cost to put guys in NYC versus Ohio from Bangalore is identical but billing rate advantage between NYC and Ohio is vastly different and they might have hire locally.
more...
GlobalCitizen
07-27 10:31 AM
Thank you every one for your help. I have decided to apply!
hair Hot Mens Hairstyles 2010
fromnaija
12-08 04:52 PM
I think AP can also be mailed to a person who is not in the U.S. If that's the case, you could re-apply for AP once your old expires. Please verify with an attorney.
AP could be mailed but the applicant MUST be in the USA at the time of application.
AP could be mailed but the applicant MUST be in the USA at the time of application.
more...
desi3933
03-03 11:54 AM
Thank you Desi!
Man, that is one heck of confusing language, I am still trying to understand it.
Main line is this -
In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b) (1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date.
Translation -
If person has multiple approved I-140 petitions under EB-1, EB-2, and Eb-3 sections, he./she can claim the earliest PD date to any of his/her I-140 approved petitions.
An example taken from Michael Aytes Memo (09/12/2006), section 22.2(d)(3) page 28:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Man, that is one heck of confusing language, I am still trying to understand it.
Main line is this -
In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b) (1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date.
Translation -
If person has multiple approved I-140 petitions under EB-1, EB-2, and Eb-3 sections, he./she can claim the earliest PD date to any of his/her I-140 approved petitions.
An example taken from Michael Aytes Memo (09/12/2006), section 22.2(d)(3) page 28:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
hot Men Hair Styles 2011 With
walking_dude
03-20 10:11 AM
There are 35 Senate seats up for election in November along with the post of President. That is 35% of 100 seat Senate. It will be a different Senate as Dems are projected to win many of these seats and Repubs are projected to lose them. As things stand, now GOP [Republicans] are strategizing how to prevent Democrats from getting filibuster-proof 60 seat majority in the Senate. Even if they (dems) don't get 60 seats [ lets say they are 2-3 seats short] they can easily provide incentives for 2-3 Republican Senators to cross-over and vote with them [ much easier than getting 9-10 like now!]. That way, it will be a different Senate.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/senate_races.html
And the whole of House of Representatives [ which has 2 years term] is up for election too [ last election was in 2006]. It's true that all media attention is focussed on Presidential election. But there are also going to be major changes in the House as well as the Senate.
I agree with you on one point. Definitely Lobbying will be needed to be done after the elections. Its the only way to attach IVs provisions to some other bill and getting it passed. There's no other way to get them passed.
Ok move over Prez elections..what happens in 09 after the Prez election..the current senate is the same..which refuses to pass any immi bill..just because the Prez elections will get over this year..why are we expecting that next year any bill will pass??..
So Lobby , more lobbying and extreme lobbying..is the way to go..!!I dont see any other way out;)
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/senate_races.html
And the whole of House of Representatives [ which has 2 years term] is up for election too [ last election was in 2006]. It's true that all media attention is focussed on Presidential election. But there are also going to be major changes in the House as well as the Senate.
I agree with you on one point. Definitely Lobbying will be needed to be done after the elections. Its the only way to attach IVs provisions to some other bill and getting it passed. There's no other way to get them passed.
Ok move over Prez elections..what happens in 09 after the Prez election..the current senate is the same..which refuses to pass any immi bill..just because the Prez elections will get over this year..why are we expecting that next year any bill will pass??..
So Lobby , more lobbying and extreme lobbying..is the way to go..!!I dont see any other way out;)
more...
house makeup long hair styles 2011
abhijitp
06-21 09:07 AM
Thanks Raj. No, I do qualify for EB-2 so I would not want to apply under EB-3, but I just don't know if the attorneys filed everything (e.g progressive experience letters) appropriately, if not, what happens? Hopefully an RFE.
If it instead got rejected, so would the I-1485 (AOS) application that depends on it right?
If it instead got rejected, so would the I-1485 (AOS) application that depends on it right?
tattoo Long shaggy hairstyle for men
Bimmer740i
07-10 07:39 PM
http://www.ilbsg.com
They charge $600 for H-1B
They charge $600 for H-1B
more...
pictures Image of Top Hairstyles 2011
Jaime
08-06 12:12 PM
Yeah, why not? As long as Legals ALSO get green cards!
On The Washington Post today:
A Less Ambitious Approach to Immigration
By Arlen Specter
Monday, August 6, 2007; Page A17
The charge of amnesty defeated comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate this summer. It is too important, and there has been too much legislative investment, not to try again. The time to do so is now.
Certainly the government should implement the provisions it has already enacted to improve border security and crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. But the important additions on those subjects contained in the bill defeated in June will not be enacted without also dealing with the 12 million-plus undocumented immigrants and the guest worker program.
So let's take a fresh look and try a narrower approach.
There is a consensus in Congress on most objectives and many remedies for immigration reform: more border patrols, additional fencing, drones and some form of a guest worker program. Modern technological advances provide foolproof identification so employers can -- justifiably -- be severely sanctioned if they don't verify IDs and act to eliminate the magnet attracting illegals to penetrate the border. Yet Congress is unlikely to appropriate $3 billion for border security without dealing simultaneously with the illegal immigrants already here.
The main objective in legalizing the 12 million was to eliminate their fugitive status, allowing them to live in the United States without fear of being detected and deported or being abused by unscrupulous employers. We should consider a revised status for those 12 million people. Let them hold the status of those with green cards -- without the automatic path to citizenship that was the core component of critics' argument that reform efforts were really amnesty. Give these people the company of their spouses and minor children and consider other indicators of citizenship short of the right to vote (which was always the dealbreaker).
This approach may be attacked as creating an "underclass" inconsistent with American values, which have always been to give refuge to the "huddled masses." But such a compromise is clearly better than leaving these people a fugitive class. People with a lesser status are frequently referred to as second-class citizens. Congress has adamantly refused to make the 12 million people already here full citizens, but isn't it better for them to at least be secure aliens than hunted and exploited?
Giving these people green-card status leaves open the opportunity for them to return to their native lands and seek citizenship through regular channels. Or, after our borders are secured and tough employer sanctions have been put in place, Congress can revisit the issue and possibly find a more hospitable America.
Some of the other refinements of the defeated bill can await another day and the regular process of Judiciary Committee hearings and markups. Changing the law on family unification with a point system can also be considered later. Now, perhaps, we could add green cards for highly skilled workers and tinker at the edges of immigration law, providing we don't get bogged down in endless debate and defeated cloture motions.
It would be refreshing if Congress, and the country, could come together in a bipartisan way to at least partially solve one of the big domestic issues of the day.
The writer, a senator from Pennsylvania, is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
On The Washington Post today:
A Less Ambitious Approach to Immigration
By Arlen Specter
Monday, August 6, 2007; Page A17
The charge of amnesty defeated comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate this summer. It is too important, and there has been too much legislative investment, not to try again. The time to do so is now.
Certainly the government should implement the provisions it has already enacted to improve border security and crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. But the important additions on those subjects contained in the bill defeated in June will not be enacted without also dealing with the 12 million-plus undocumented immigrants and the guest worker program.
So let's take a fresh look and try a narrower approach.
There is a consensus in Congress on most objectives and many remedies for immigration reform: more border patrols, additional fencing, drones and some form of a guest worker program. Modern technological advances provide foolproof identification so employers can -- justifiably -- be severely sanctioned if they don't verify IDs and act to eliminate the magnet attracting illegals to penetrate the border. Yet Congress is unlikely to appropriate $3 billion for border security without dealing simultaneously with the illegal immigrants already here.
The main objective in legalizing the 12 million was to eliminate their fugitive status, allowing them to live in the United States without fear of being detected and deported or being abused by unscrupulous employers. We should consider a revised status for those 12 million people. Let them hold the status of those with green cards -- without the automatic path to citizenship that was the core component of critics' argument that reform efforts were really amnesty. Give these people the company of their spouses and minor children and consider other indicators of citizenship short of the right to vote (which was always the dealbreaker).
This approach may be attacked as creating an "underclass" inconsistent with American values, which have always been to give refuge to the "huddled masses." But such a compromise is clearly better than leaving these people a fugitive class. People with a lesser status are frequently referred to as second-class citizens. Congress has adamantly refused to make the 12 million people already here full citizens, but isn't it better for them to at least be secure aliens than hunted and exploited?
Giving these people green-card status leaves open the opportunity for them to return to their native lands and seek citizenship through regular channels. Or, after our borders are secured and tough employer sanctions have been put in place, Congress can revisit the issue and possibly find a more hospitable America.
Some of the other refinements of the defeated bill can await another day and the regular process of Judiciary Committee hearings and markups. Changing the law on family unification with a point system can also be considered later. Now, perhaps, we could add green cards for highly skilled workers and tinker at the edges of immigration law, providing we don't get bogged down in endless debate and defeated cloture motions.
It would be refreshing if Congress, and the country, could come together in a bipartisan way to at least partially solve one of the big domestic issues of the day.
The writer, a senator from Pennsylvania, is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
dresses hairstyles 2011 men long. long
crystal
04-11 02:56 PM
When I look at any member public profile , I dont see Labor prority date and Category (Eb2/eb3). This is I guess because Labor priority date and category fields are not in addition information part of the profile. We need to move those fields into additional information part .
more...
makeup Mens Hairstyles 2011 Long Hair
txh1b
04-15 10:46 AM
What took you sooo long to wake up from the slumber and realize that you need to get paid? Look up WH4 and complain to DOL. Look for the contents in the Neufield memo as well.
girlfriend mens medium hair styles
Dhundhun
11-30 02:13 PM
There are cases getting RFEs for photos / even if photos are sent, for not sending letter explaining reasons for AP and for not sending copies I485 receipts.
There are several approved cases without letter or I485 receipts.
But when I did paper based AP renewal, I made a packet of the following and recommend making similar packet:
Packet with top right (application for AP A#...)
.... I131 Application
.... Envelop (on cover describing that it contains photo and check)
........ Two pictures with name and A# on back
........ $305 check in favor of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, USCIS
.... Copy of I485 Receipt Notice
.... Copy of previous AP
.... Photo Ids (all)
........ Copy of Biographic Pages of Passport and
........ Copy of DL and
........ Copy of EAD
.... A Letter stating reason for AP, expecting delays in GC due to swing in PD, nine years of wait.
Refer to http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18737 at the end of first post also.
In this approach, there is little chance of getting RFE due to missing items and photos also will remain safe inside the inner envelop, until required.
Update: Received both APs in less than 2 months.
There are several approved cases without letter or I485 receipts.
But when I did paper based AP renewal, I made a packet of the following and recommend making similar packet:
Packet with top right (application for AP A#...)
.... I131 Application
.... Envelop (on cover describing that it contains photo and check)
........ Two pictures with name and A# on back
........ $305 check in favor of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, USCIS
.... Copy of I485 Receipt Notice
.... Copy of previous AP
.... Photo Ids (all)
........ Copy of Biographic Pages of Passport and
........ Copy of DL and
........ Copy of EAD
.... A Letter stating reason for AP, expecting delays in GC due to swing in PD, nine years of wait.
Refer to http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18737 at the end of first post also.
In this approach, there is little chance of getting RFE due to missing items and photos also will remain safe inside the inner envelop, until required.
Update: Received both APs in less than 2 months.
hairstyles men hairstyle ideas. Men Long
leslie535
02-28 11:00 AM
hey unitednations:
She had the B visa all along so there is no issue of her telling the truth or not on the visa app.
I have looked into the V visa before as well, and as we know, it is not applicable since I filed the I-130 July, 2006.
The present situation is that we just booked a ticket for her and the baby to head home on March 17th (the I-94 expires March 24th.) The hope is to receive good news on the grad school application and commence the work on the F-1. Thanks for your inputs so far guys..
Leslie
She had the B visa all along so there is no issue of her telling the truth or not on the visa app.
I have looked into the V visa before as well, and as we know, it is not applicable since I filed the I-130 July, 2006.
The present situation is that we just booked a ticket for her and the baby to head home on March 17th (the I-94 expires March 24th.) The hope is to receive good news on the grad school application and commence the work on the F-1. Thanks for your inputs so far guys..
Leslie
mnq1979
06-26 03:32 PM
What did u provid as of now?? If can obtain bc u can produce it. If u do not have one then ceritificate of non-availability. Besides this u need to produce secendary evidences such as school, medical and religious documents or affidavits which mentions both your parents and your full names. That is what I did. In anycase, you will be given instructions on the rfe what to respond to the rfe. Good luck.
I jsut spoke to my mom and she confirmed that she has my BC in diffrent language and will get it translated. So i think i m good from that part.
But my wife BC is not available. I have asked my father in law and he said he will ask some one to get. It is possible but will take a little time.
My question is since her BC will be made NOW do i need any other proof with her BC?
I jsut spoke to my mom and she confirmed that she has my BC in diffrent language and will get it translated. So i think i m good from that part.
But my wife BC is not available. I have asked my father in law and he said he will ask some one to get. It is possible but will take a little time.
My question is since her BC will be made NOW do i need any other proof with her BC?
shirish
08-30 11:52 AM
How do you call USCIS? I mean what options did you select to talk to some one. Looks like their options are changed.
I called USCIS today and they said they are using the receipt date on I797 and not on the website. Yes that is right on website they show ND and say receipt date..its all messed up, but as per totay's call, it seems 797 RD is what they are using.
I called USCIS today and they said they are using the receipt date on I797 and not on the website. Yes that is right on website they show ND and say receipt date..its all messed up, but as per totay's call, it seems 797 RD is what they are using.
No comments:
Post a Comment