spicy_guy
10-29 05:37 PM
What is I148?:confused:
LOL! Does he mean I-485?
LOL! Does he mean I-485?
wallpaper justin bieber quizzes for girls only. Amazing justin obsessed girls
matreen
04-26 12:18 AM
Team,
Friend of mine had a interview today about 20 min, seems like everything looks good.
The current case for my friend falls under EB3 (2001). But the tricky thing is he filed another case in 2005 in Lulac but he revoked the case.
After interview officer said she needs calrify the Lulac case and background check.
I am wondering if anybody is in similar situation if so your advice will be very valuable.
Thanks,
M
Friend of mine had a interview today about 20 min, seems like everything looks good.
The current case for my friend falls under EB3 (2001). But the tricky thing is he filed another case in 2005 in Lulac but he revoked the case.
After interview officer said she needs calrify the Lulac case and background check.
I am wondering if anybody is in similar situation if so your advice will be very valuable.
Thanks,
M
Deepadandamudi
01-28 10:21 PM
Since 7 years I was working on EAD and now I am thinking to convert into H1B , since I am planning to get separated from spouse.(my GC process is dependent on my spouse).
I was not on H1B before.
Q1: Once I get my H1B, will my EAD gets revoked or can I maintain both H1B as well as EAD?
Q2: If I get divorced, will by EAD status becomes invalid from the day1 after divorce?
I was not on H1B before.
Q1: Once I get my H1B, will my EAD gets revoked or can I maintain both H1B as well as EAD?
Q2: If I get divorced, will by EAD status becomes invalid from the day1 after divorce?
2011 Justin-ieber-collection-album
WaitingYaar
01-09 09:08 AM
EB3 I-485 filed in May 2007 with PD in 2002
more...
sodh
07-17 08:46 PM
I called an IO today at Texas.
Last week they told me that due to glitch they never printed my fp notice.
The IO I talked to then, said that she was going to generate one and mailed to me.
I talked to another lady today and she said that notice was mailed last Thursday! She told me my appointment is on July 26 at 9:00 am but I dont have the NOA yet.... I dont know what to do I dont want to miss my appointment
The lady said she will sent another one today..... I hope I get it, please let me know if you guys have any advice
If I'am not mistaken I feel even the Lawyer gets the fp notice check with your lawyer.
Last week they told me that due to glitch they never printed my fp notice.
The IO I talked to then, said that she was going to generate one and mailed to me.
I talked to another lady today and she said that notice was mailed last Thursday! She told me my appointment is on July 26 at 9:00 am but I dont have the NOA yet.... I dont know what to do I dont want to miss my appointment
The lady said she will sent another one today..... I hope I get it, please let me know if you guys have any advice
If I'am not mistaken I feel even the Lawyer gets the fp notice check with your lawyer.
forgerator
10-05 10:58 PM
What about working remotely?
more...
number30
07-26 04:47 PM
Hello Friends
My EB2 petition was filed in TSC in June 2009 and on July 20 2009 I received an email saying that " my approval notice was sent".Today the status changed to " Document mailed ON juLY 24 2009 " and also my previous eb1a denial in Feb 2009 got a soft LUD.
I am totally confused by this . Can some one offer their opinion on this strange development ?
Appreciate your help in advance
MurthyDotCom : TSC Erroneously Issues I-140 Approval eMails on Premium Processing Cases (http://murthy.com/news/n_erriss.html)
My EB2 petition was filed in TSC in June 2009 and on July 20 2009 I received an email saying that " my approval notice was sent".Today the status changed to " Document mailed ON juLY 24 2009 " and also my previous eb1a denial in Feb 2009 got a soft LUD.
I am totally confused by this . Can some one offer their opinion on this strange development ?
Appreciate your help in advance
MurthyDotCom : TSC Erroneously Issues I-140 Approval eMails on Premium Processing Cases (http://murthy.com/news/n_erriss.html)
2010 justin bieber quizzes.
rkdnc9
03-27 11:39 AM
Thank you pal. Is it safe for her to apply for H4 while in India? or is better she apply after coming here? She wants to apply for H4 after coming to usa.
more...
Blog Feeds
07-08 11:30 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
Senator Sessions cannot leave his hands off of E-Verify. Now in "stealth" mode, Senator Sessions has slyly introduced an E-Verify amendment (SB 1371) during today's full Senate vote on the DHS appropriations bill.
The Sessions amendment calls for a permanent reauthorization of the Basic Pilot/E-Verify program, and mandates its use for all federal contractors and subcontractors - including the verification of all existing employees. This amounts to a massive expansion of a program that is still not ready for prime-time.
We must call our Senators and tell them to oppose this sneak attack by Senator Sessions for the following reasons:
It would impose exorbitant costs on businesses at a time when our economy is most vulnerable:
An economic analysis commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
concluded that the net societal costs of the program would be $10 billion a year
� a cost that would be felt disproportionately by small businesses. It would make Basic Pilot/E-Verify permanent without addressing its well documented database inaccuracies:
A 2007 independent evaluation of the program commissioned by DHS found that
the Basic Pilot/E-Verify database �is still not sufficiently up to date� to meet
the requirements for �accurate verification.�
SSA has estimated that if Basic Pilot/E-Verify were to become mandatory and
the databases were not improved, SSA database errors alone could result in 3.6
million workers a year being misidentified as not authorized for employment.
This would result in 6 out of every 100 workers having to visit an SSA office to
correct their records or lose their job.
It would force workers and businesses to pay a high price for Basic Pilot/E-Verify's inaccuracies:
Queries submitted to Basic Pilot/E-Verify by Intel Corporation in 2008 resulted
in nearly 13 percent of all workers being initially flagged as unauthorized for
employment. All of these workers were cleared by Basic Pilot/E-Verify as
work-authorized, but only after �significant investment of time and money�
and �lost productivity.�We urge all AILA members to call their Congressman today and oppose the Sessions amendment (SB 1371). Don't let Senator Session's stealth tactics create a nationwide crisis for employers!
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-5839069238864574507?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/there-he-goes-again-sessions-and-e.html)
Senator Sessions cannot leave his hands off of E-Verify. Now in "stealth" mode, Senator Sessions has slyly introduced an E-Verify amendment (SB 1371) during today's full Senate vote on the DHS appropriations bill.
The Sessions amendment calls for a permanent reauthorization of the Basic Pilot/E-Verify program, and mandates its use for all federal contractors and subcontractors - including the verification of all existing employees. This amounts to a massive expansion of a program that is still not ready for prime-time.
We must call our Senators and tell them to oppose this sneak attack by Senator Sessions for the following reasons:
It would impose exorbitant costs on businesses at a time when our economy is most vulnerable:
An economic analysis commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
concluded that the net societal costs of the program would be $10 billion a year
� a cost that would be felt disproportionately by small businesses. It would make Basic Pilot/E-Verify permanent without addressing its well documented database inaccuracies:
A 2007 independent evaluation of the program commissioned by DHS found that
the Basic Pilot/E-Verify database �is still not sufficiently up to date� to meet
the requirements for �accurate verification.�
SSA has estimated that if Basic Pilot/E-Verify were to become mandatory and
the databases were not improved, SSA database errors alone could result in 3.6
million workers a year being misidentified as not authorized for employment.
This would result in 6 out of every 100 workers having to visit an SSA office to
correct their records or lose their job.
It would force workers and businesses to pay a high price for Basic Pilot/E-Verify's inaccuracies:
Queries submitted to Basic Pilot/E-Verify by Intel Corporation in 2008 resulted
in nearly 13 percent of all workers being initially flagged as unauthorized for
employment. All of these workers were cleared by Basic Pilot/E-Verify as
work-authorized, but only after �significant investment of time and money�
and �lost productivity.�We urge all AILA members to call their Congressman today and oppose the Sessions amendment (SB 1371). Don't let Senator Session's stealth tactics create a nationwide crisis for employers!
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-5839069238864574507?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/there-he-goes-again-sessions-and-e.html)
hair justin bieber quizzes for girls only. Quiz+of+justin+ieber Only
beautifulMind
04-22 02:38 PM
so what do we do now..How can we get the accurate wage
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code=15-1034&area=45300&year=9&source=2
if we go there the jobzone is NA and hence the salary cannot be accurately determined hence by rule just out level 1 wage
O*Net� JobZone: NA
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code=15-1034&area=45300&year=9&source=2
if we go there the jobzone is NA and hence the salary cannot be accurately determined hence by rule just out level 1 wage
O*Net� JobZone: NA
more...
same_old_guy
10-23 05:31 PM
Who told you that ? I am sure it wasn't any lawyer !!
hot Quizzes only for girls. Justin
visa_reval
03-14 03:46 PM
and I dont have an answer for it. Can somebody point us to the doc pls.
more...
house justin bieber quizzes for girls only. Used to quizzes for girls
chna
06-30 11:46 AM
Hi Friends,
I am a green card holder, becoming eligible for citizenship in April 2009. My fianc�e has been in the US for the past 2 plus years on F1. She completes her MS in December this year .We plan to visit our home country in August this year and get married. I thought this was a relatively uncomplicated case till I read in some forum recently that marriage to a permanent resident can be a barrier to being admitted to the U.S. in F-1 status. This is because such a marriage obliterates the "non-immigrant" intent required for F-1 entrants. This could very easily jeopardize her plan to re-enter in F-1 status.
Any thoughts or advice on this? Appreciate all the help.
Thanks a lot.
I am a green card holder, becoming eligible for citizenship in April 2009. My fianc�e has been in the US for the past 2 plus years on F1. She completes her MS in December this year .We plan to visit our home country in August this year and get married. I thought this was a relatively uncomplicated case till I read in some forum recently that marriage to a permanent resident can be a barrier to being admitted to the U.S. in F-1 status. This is because such a marriage obliterates the "non-immigrant" intent required for F-1 entrants. This could very easily jeopardize her plan to re-enter in F-1 status.
Any thoughts or advice on this? Appreciate all the help.
Thanks a lot.
tattoo hot justin bieber quizzes for
digital2k
08-04 01:03 AM
*
more...
pictures justin bieber ideal girl quiz.
die_exquisita
06-03 06:23 AM
Hello,
I will be getting married to a H1 holder in India and because of the time involved in obtaining a marriage certificate, am planning to leave shortly after the wedding with my existing B2/tourist visa. What are my options of applying for a H4 once I do that - would I have to come back to India to apply for that, or can it be done from Canada/Mexico - are there any risks pertaining to intent of travel associated with such an action. Thanking you in advance for valuable help in this matter!
I will be getting married to a H1 holder in India and because of the time involved in obtaining a marriage certificate, am planning to leave shortly after the wedding with my existing B2/tourist visa. What are my options of applying for a H4 once I do that - would I have to come back to India to apply for that, or can it be done from Canada/Mexico - are there any risks pertaining to intent of travel associated with such an action. Thanking you in advance for valuable help in this matter!
dresses all about justin bieber quiz.
snathan
02-28 11:35 PM
For tax purposes you are resident of state where you reside. For best opinion you can check with the international students center at your school. It is not illegal to attend classes online if your school allows you the option. Again for best advise contact international center they are supposed to guide you to keep your status legal.
What about TVU case?
What about TVU case?
more...
makeup pictures justin bieber quizzes
Hinglish
03-04 05:17 PM
Source: ILW News Letter
Serious immigration legislation is in the air. Rep Shuler's (D-
NC) enforcement-only bill has attracted a fair number of supporters, and the rumor is that the House Republicans will try to force through a discharge petition necessitating a vote on the bill. While we are skeptical that a discharge petition has much chance of success, the House Democratic leadership is apparently not so sanguine (for info on discharge petitions, see here).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/discharge_petition
The House Hispanic Caucus has prepared a plan to meet the antis head on if they force a vote on the Shuler Bill.
The plan begins with the proposition that any serious discussion of immigration on the Hill will definitely harm Republican presidential nominee McCain. If he supports the "pros", the anti immigration fanatics in the Republican party will not support him in the general election; if he supports the "antis", it will weaken his appeal to the independents for the general election.
Second, should a vote on the Shuler bill come about, the House Hispanic caucus would seek to attach numerous benefit amendments to it - there is every likelihood that some of these amendments will succeed, a raising of the H cap, for example. Hopefully, so the thinking among the strategists among the House Democrats goes, the success of a few amendments will be a "poison-pill"
guaranteeing the defeat of the over-all measure since the antis are not in a mood to make any deal trading enforcement with benefits at this time. Ironically, the antis in the House may be forced to vote against the amended Shuler bill, thus positioning the Democrats as the real pro-enforcement party.
Our take is that once started down the Hill (pun intended), the momentum of an immigration bill would be hard to stop, and we might end up with something along the lines of the Kennedy-Kyl compromise of last spring, but without the point system which doomed it. To the surprise of many, Comprehensive Immigration Reform appears far from dead. And once again, it's the antis who deserve the credit for bringing benefits to the fore.
We welcome readers to share their opinion and ideas with us by writing to mailto:editor@ilw.com.
__________________________________________________ _______________
Serious immigration legislation is in the air. Rep Shuler's (D-
NC) enforcement-only bill has attracted a fair number of supporters, and the rumor is that the House Republicans will try to force through a discharge petition necessitating a vote on the bill. While we are skeptical that a discharge petition has much chance of success, the House Democratic leadership is apparently not so sanguine (for info on discharge petitions, see here).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/discharge_petition
The House Hispanic Caucus has prepared a plan to meet the antis head on if they force a vote on the Shuler Bill.
The plan begins with the proposition that any serious discussion of immigration on the Hill will definitely harm Republican presidential nominee McCain. If he supports the "pros", the anti immigration fanatics in the Republican party will not support him in the general election; if he supports the "antis", it will weaken his appeal to the independents for the general election.
Second, should a vote on the Shuler bill come about, the House Hispanic caucus would seek to attach numerous benefit amendments to it - there is every likelihood that some of these amendments will succeed, a raising of the H cap, for example. Hopefully, so the thinking among the strategists among the House Democrats goes, the success of a few amendments will be a "poison-pill"
guaranteeing the defeat of the over-all measure since the antis are not in a mood to make any deal trading enforcement with benefits at this time. Ironically, the antis in the House may be forced to vote against the amended Shuler bill, thus positioning the Democrats as the real pro-enforcement party.
Our take is that once started down the Hill (pun intended), the momentum of an immigration bill would be hard to stop, and we might end up with something along the lines of the Kennedy-Kyl compromise of last spring, but without the point system which doomed it. To the surprise of many, Comprehensive Immigration Reform appears far from dead. And once again, it's the antis who deserve the credit for bringing benefits to the fore.
We welcome readers to share their opinion and ideas with us by writing to mailto:editor@ilw.com.
__________________________________________________ _______________
girlfriend dresses justin bieber quizzes
fromnaija
06-21 01:44 PM
You did not mention if you already filed your AOS application. If yes, then you may keep your application going if it's been more than 180 days since you filed.
If you have not filed I-485 then your new employer will have to start the process from beginning. You may be able to retain the old PD even if previous employer revoked the I-140, unless USCIS revoked your I-140 for fraud.
For when you already filed I-485.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/I140_AC21_8403.pdf
For when you have not filed I-485
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_Files_Memoranda/Archives%201998-2008/2006/afm_ch22_091206r.pdf
Quote from page 27 of above document when you have not filed I-485
(1) Determining the Priority Date.
In general, if a petition is supported by an individual labor certification issued by DOL, the priority date is the earliest date upon which the labor certification application was filed with DOL. In those cases where the alien�s priority date is established by the filing of the labor certification, once the alien�s Form I-140 petition has been approved, the alien beneficiary retains his or her priority date as established by the filing of the labor certification for any future Form I-140 petitions, unless the previously approved Form I-140 petition has been revoked because of fraud or willful misrepresentation. This includes cases where a change of employer has occurred; however, the new employer must obtain a new labor certification if the classification requested requires a labor certification (see the section on successor in interest).
If you have not filed I-485 then your new employer will have to start the process from beginning. You may be able to retain the old PD even if previous employer revoked the I-140, unless USCIS revoked your I-140 for fraud.
For when you already filed I-485.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/I140_AC21_8403.pdf
For when you have not filed I-485
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_Files_Memoranda/Archives%201998-2008/2006/afm_ch22_091206r.pdf
Quote from page 27 of above document when you have not filed I-485
(1) Determining the Priority Date.
In general, if a petition is supported by an individual labor certification issued by DOL, the priority date is the earliest date upon which the labor certification application was filed with DOL. In those cases where the alien�s priority date is established by the filing of the labor certification, once the alien�s Form I-140 petition has been approved, the alien beneficiary retains his or her priority date as established by the filing of the labor certification for any future Form I-140 petitions, unless the previously approved Form I-140 petition has been revoked because of fraud or willful misrepresentation. This includes cases where a change of employer has occurred; however, the new employer must obtain a new labor certification if the classification requested requires a labor certification (see the section on successor in interest).
hairstyles house justin bieber quiz book.
nc14
08-13 02:57 PM
I am from Cincinnati Ohio and would like to be a part of the effort.
Rockey
02-29 07:23 PM
Any one who have marked No for these questions even after applying for 140 and 485..:confused: Please post...
kirupa
07-19 04:35 PM
Hi jkid,
Unfortunately, this is an area that I am not very familiar with. Posting on MSDN or stackoverlow.com may be a good idea since the forums in this category are more on the UI/design side of .NET develoment.
Cheers!
Kirupa :)
Unfortunately, this is an area that I am not very familiar with. Posting on MSDN or stackoverlow.com may be a good idea since the forums in this category are more on the UI/design side of .NET develoment.
Cheers!
Kirupa :)
No comments:
Post a Comment