ca_immigrant
05-22 04:13 PM
There is an RFE on my wifes application yesterday. Wierdly nothing on mines Yet.
Do you know how early IO knows the info about RFE so that i can take an appointment
In my case also, we got a rfe for my wife only in march or so
there was something the "nice" doctor forgot to mention in the medical form and so the rfe...we responded in time and they have got it.
I am the primary applicant and I did not have an RFE (atleast so far)
Do you know how early IO knows the info about RFE so that i can take an appointment
In my case also, we got a rfe for my wife only in march or so
there was something the "nice" doctor forgot to mention in the medical form and so the rfe...we responded in time and they have got it.
I am the primary applicant and I did not have an RFE (atleast so far)
wallpaper #39;Beautiful Fish Wallpaper,
gg10004
07-23 09:26 AM
Why dint you ask the badge/ID of the officer and file a complaint.
vin13
03-31 09:05 AM
We got RFE on our 485 in September. RFE for me was for TB test clarrification and they asked my wife's status for a certain period. Both these RFEs came together. We replied back and the status changed to "Case Resumed....".There has not been any RFEs later
Even though there is nothing stopping USCIS to issue RFE again, the probability might be less. The chances of them going through the same application several times does not seem practical.
I was a little nervous when they issued an RFE. But after responding back, now i feel better that atleast they looked at my case.
I wish we could find out if our cases are pre-adjudicated.
Even though there is nothing stopping USCIS to issue RFE again, the probability might be less. The chances of them going through the same application several times does not seem practical.
I was a little nervous when they issued an RFE. But after responding back, now i feel better that atleast they looked at my case.
I wish we could find out if our cases are pre-adjudicated.
2011 Chrysiptera - Fish Pack
johnamit
06-11 01:23 PM
Mine don't say anything like this, it has just my name. it was approved on 3/23/2006. is that common?
more...
h1bnogc
08-29 01:16 PM
I travelled around 3 months back.
I think the client letter issued for getting the H1 and a letter from your employer confirming your employment should be OK. However, as I said, I am not in consulting industry so did not carry any of these
Thank a lot for your response. It looks like in this travel scenario, extension of stay makes thing more complicated than h1b transfer because of start and end date of extension and travel date. Please share your thought on this. many many thanks
I think the client letter issued for getting the H1 and a letter from your employer confirming your employment should be OK. However, as I said, I am not in consulting industry so did not carry any of these
Thank a lot for your response. It looks like in this travel scenario, extension of stay makes thing more complicated than h1b transfer because of start and end date of extension and travel date. Please share your thought on this. many many thanks
Flashshe
09-19 05:27 PM
There was a tutorial in computer arts a while back about how to do pixel art in Photoshop. Here's the link (http://computerarts.co.uk/tutorials/type/tutorial.asp?id=32297). Not too detailed, but clears up some questions...hope it helps.
-A
-A
more...
dontcareaboutGC
03-31 09:45 AM
Assuming that 125 K that Jeff Flake obtained are correct then what USCIS projects the backlog to be 250 K by 2009. That would mean that we are distributing 125 K between E1-E5 for all other countries of chargeablity. Does this add up? I don't think so.
We also have to consider CP as compared to AOS. In this case if these numbers were true the DOS would start making the dates current for the overseas consular posts to catch up which is what it currently does anyhow since it doesnt have the right information from CIS anyways...so I have no reason to believe the farcial information that CIS publishes to alleviate any future forseeable pain they will have to endure as the pressure from other areas of congress and public in general start mounting up.
Besides these are the folks who have NO REGARD for law and make and interprete laws per their own terms
We also have to consider CP as compared to AOS. In this case if these numbers were true the DOS would start making the dates current for the overseas consular posts to catch up which is what it currently does anyhow since it doesnt have the right information from CIS anyways...so I have no reason to believe the farcial information that CIS publishes to alleviate any future forseeable pain they will have to endure as the pressure from other areas of congress and public in general start mounting up.
Besides these are the folks who have NO REGARD for law and make and interprete laws per their own terms
2010 eautiful fishes wallpaper.
Munna Bhai
01-09 03:59 PM
I had an RFE for the ability to pay, PD is sep 2004 , USCIS asked the ability to pay since PD . I have been getting paid more than double the proferred wage since PD so it was easy to prove.
USCIS asked to prove the A2P for all the petitions pending simultaneously and My lawyer handled it very well.
I think NSC routinely asks for the A2P. My lawyers is very conservative he did not even include my w2s while applying 140. His philosophy is dont give any extra info unless otherwise explicitly asked.
Did they asked for A2P before I-140 approval? or at I-485 stage??
USCIS asked to prove the A2P for all the petitions pending simultaneously and My lawyer handled it very well.
I think NSC routinely asks for the A2P. My lawyers is very conservative he did not even include my w2s while applying 140. His philosophy is dont give any extra info unless otherwise explicitly asked.
Did they asked for A2P before I-140 approval? or at I-485 stage??
more...
ssingh92
01-02 10:19 AM
Hi,
I travelled outside USA last year and entered using Advance parole. When I entered USA, my I-94 was stamped with one year time. Now, my I-94 is expiring.
So, my question is will I be out of status if my I-94 expire? I have pending I-485 and used Advance parole to enter USA. This question may have been answered before but when I asked this question to my lawyer, he said I need to renew my I-94. So, now I am kind of confused whether I really need to renew my I-94 or I am good because my I-485 is pending.
Thanks,
BK
I will be in similar situation in Apr 2009. I asked my lawyer. He said that dont worry. It will be extended. I have to remind him next week to extend the I-94.
Contact your company Lawyer ASAP.
I travelled outside USA last year and entered using Advance parole. When I entered USA, my I-94 was stamped with one year time. Now, my I-94 is expiring.
So, my question is will I be out of status if my I-94 expire? I have pending I-485 and used Advance parole to enter USA. This question may have been answered before but when I asked this question to my lawyer, he said I need to renew my I-94. So, now I am kind of confused whether I really need to renew my I-94 or I am good because my I-485 is pending.
Thanks,
BK
I will be in similar situation in Apr 2009. I asked my lawyer. He said that dont worry. It will be extended. I have to remind him next week to extend the I-94.
Contact your company Lawyer ASAP.
hair Moving Fishes Wallpaper.
lostinbeta
09-13 01:34 AM
Wow, those are really excellent. I don't mean to be rude, but if you ask me it looks like he drew the picture and then used the Pixelate filter in Photoshop.
I am not saying he did, but if he didn't then I have to give him major credit for that work.
I am not saying he did, but if he didn't then I have to give him major credit for that work.
more...
forgerator
05-13 10:31 PM
More details about gold appreciated. Gold bonds?
GLD index is almost as good as buying actual gold.
GLD index is almost as good as buying actual gold.
hot images eautiful fishes
cram
10-13 11:39 AM
My friend has the exact same mistake, but this time with her green card. They mistakenly put "male" with her picture on it. She never had it changed and she has used it to travel without any problems. Good luck.
more...
house Beautiful Wallpapers: Fish
jnayar2006
03-26 11:49 PM
From the minutes on the conf call for GA volunteers I gather it was a rather poorly attended affair. (and apologies to the organizers that I couldn't dial in). In any case, has any one taken appointments to meet with the GA legislators in and around ATL? If so, please let me know and I will join. If not, I am planning to call up the relevant offices tomorrow or the day after requesting appointments.
tattoo eautiful fishes wallpaper.
realist
01-07 09:00 AM
In a move certain to escalate the legal tug of war over illegal immigration, state lawmakers from across the country announced Wednesday that they are launching an effort to deny automatic citizenship to the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants.
Republicans from Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, South Carolina and other states said they were taking aim at birthright citizenship by seeking to apply the Constitution's 14th Amendment - which grants citizenship to all children born in the United States - only to children with at least one parent who is a permanent resident or citizen.
Within weeks, several state legislatures are expected to introduce bills that would lay the groundwork for such a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, which was passed in the wake of the Civil War in order to confer citizenship on freed African American slaves.
Proponents said their strategy is designed to draw legal challenges and get the issue before the Supreme Court.
Civil rights groups denounced the move and said it was motivated by racism against Latino immigrants. They also said that Supreme Court precedents have made clear for more than a century that the 14th Amendment applies to all children born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents were in the country legally.
About 340,000 children were born in the United States to undocumented immigrants in 2008, according to a study released in August by the Pew Hispanic Center. Thousands of children born to tourists and foreign students also could be denied citizenship if the 14th Amendment were reinterpreted.
The move is the latest example of states testing the boundaries of federal control over immigration. "This country has a malady, and it is costing her citizens dearly," said South Carolina State Sen. Danny Verdin (R). He added that the rise in number of what he called "anchor babies" - children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants - had created a huge problem.
Pennsylvania State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R) said that he was planning to introduce legislation within weeks and that legislators in about 40 states, including Virginia, had signed up to learn more about the proposal. Metcalfe said he expected about 20 states to introduce legislation soon, among them Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nebraska, Alabama, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah.
Corey Stewart, chairman of the Prince William County Board of County Supervisors, who has been pushing for Arizona-type legislation in Virginia, said he is disappointed that Virginia is not in the vanguard of the push to end birthright citizenship.
"It has been so difficult to get bold action," he said.
In Maryland, Del. Patrick L. McDonough (R-Baltimore County), the legislature's most outspoken critic of illegal immigration, said it is possible he may introduce birthright legislation. But it is unlikely to advance very far in a state controlled by Democrats.
"It's hard to imagine a more quintessentially anti-American proposal than one that would judge a person by their parents or grandparents or great-grandparents," said Lucas Guttentag, who directs the Immigrant Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. Guttentag said that the ACLU would counter any effort to challenge the 14th Amendment.
Proponents of the new strategy said they would adopt a two-pronged approach. The first is to introduce bills in state legislatures that revive the concept of "state citizenship." Only children with at least one parent who is a U.S. permanent resident or citizen would be granted state citizenship, though it wouldn't prevent the federal government from granting U.S. citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants.
The second prong of the strategy involves a more direct challenge to the authority of the federal government by using what is known as a state compact to draw a distinction between the children of undocumented immigrants and those of legal permanent residents and U.S. citizens.
A compact is a legal term that describes a measure, passed by states, that requires congressional approval. If Congress approves a state compact, it can become federal law without requiring the signature of the president, said Kris Kobach, professor of law at the University of Missouri at Kansas City and the Kansas secretary of state-elect.
The states involved in the compact would issue different birth certificates to children of permanent residents and U.S. citizens from those of undocumented immigrants, tourists and foreign students. The birth certificates would draw a distinction between those children whose parents are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" - a phrase from the 14th Amendment - and other children whose parents are not.
Kobach and other proponents said that because undocumented immigrants are in the country illegally, they are not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Effectively, states would be throwing down the gauntlet to Congress to deny citizenship to children who do not have at least one parent who is a permanent resident or a citizen.
Walter Dellinger, who was assistant attorney general and acting solicitor general in President Bill Clinton's administration, predicted that the Supreme Court would dismiss the challenge to the 14th Amendment because of past decisions that ruled children born in the United States were citizens.
In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that children born to Chinese migrants - who were themselves barred by exclusionary racial laws from becoming citizens - were U.S. citizens since they were born on U.S. soil.
The clause in the 14th Amendment that restricted birthright citizenship to those "under the jurisdiction of the United States," he added, merely excluded the children of foreign diplomats from becoming citizens.
Repeated challenges to the 14th Amendment, several civil rights experts said, had questioned the legitimacy of African American, Chinese American and Japanese American citizens. Each time, the challenge was refuted.
"This matter has been raised in every instance in a racial context," Dellinger said. "That's why we wanted a simple rule: Every new girl or boy born in this country is simply, indisputably, an American."
--Washington Post
Republicans from Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, South Carolina and other states said they were taking aim at birthright citizenship by seeking to apply the Constitution's 14th Amendment - which grants citizenship to all children born in the United States - only to children with at least one parent who is a permanent resident or citizen.
Within weeks, several state legislatures are expected to introduce bills that would lay the groundwork for such a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, which was passed in the wake of the Civil War in order to confer citizenship on freed African American slaves.
Proponents said their strategy is designed to draw legal challenges and get the issue before the Supreme Court.
Civil rights groups denounced the move and said it was motivated by racism against Latino immigrants. They also said that Supreme Court precedents have made clear for more than a century that the 14th Amendment applies to all children born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents were in the country legally.
About 340,000 children were born in the United States to undocumented immigrants in 2008, according to a study released in August by the Pew Hispanic Center. Thousands of children born to tourists and foreign students also could be denied citizenship if the 14th Amendment were reinterpreted.
The move is the latest example of states testing the boundaries of federal control over immigration. "This country has a malady, and it is costing her citizens dearly," said South Carolina State Sen. Danny Verdin (R). He added that the rise in number of what he called "anchor babies" - children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants - had created a huge problem.
Pennsylvania State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R) said that he was planning to introduce legislation within weeks and that legislators in about 40 states, including Virginia, had signed up to learn more about the proposal. Metcalfe said he expected about 20 states to introduce legislation soon, among them Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nebraska, Alabama, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah.
Corey Stewart, chairman of the Prince William County Board of County Supervisors, who has been pushing for Arizona-type legislation in Virginia, said he is disappointed that Virginia is not in the vanguard of the push to end birthright citizenship.
"It has been so difficult to get bold action," he said.
In Maryland, Del. Patrick L. McDonough (R-Baltimore County), the legislature's most outspoken critic of illegal immigration, said it is possible he may introduce birthright legislation. But it is unlikely to advance very far in a state controlled by Democrats.
"It's hard to imagine a more quintessentially anti-American proposal than one that would judge a person by their parents or grandparents or great-grandparents," said Lucas Guttentag, who directs the Immigrant Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. Guttentag said that the ACLU would counter any effort to challenge the 14th Amendment.
Proponents of the new strategy said they would adopt a two-pronged approach. The first is to introduce bills in state legislatures that revive the concept of "state citizenship." Only children with at least one parent who is a U.S. permanent resident or citizen would be granted state citizenship, though it wouldn't prevent the federal government from granting U.S. citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants.
The second prong of the strategy involves a more direct challenge to the authority of the federal government by using what is known as a state compact to draw a distinction between the children of undocumented immigrants and those of legal permanent residents and U.S. citizens.
A compact is a legal term that describes a measure, passed by states, that requires congressional approval. If Congress approves a state compact, it can become federal law without requiring the signature of the president, said Kris Kobach, professor of law at the University of Missouri at Kansas City and the Kansas secretary of state-elect.
The states involved in the compact would issue different birth certificates to children of permanent residents and U.S. citizens from those of undocumented immigrants, tourists and foreign students. The birth certificates would draw a distinction between those children whose parents are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" - a phrase from the 14th Amendment - and other children whose parents are not.
Kobach and other proponents said that because undocumented immigrants are in the country illegally, they are not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Effectively, states would be throwing down the gauntlet to Congress to deny citizenship to children who do not have at least one parent who is a permanent resident or a citizen.
Walter Dellinger, who was assistant attorney general and acting solicitor general in President Bill Clinton's administration, predicted that the Supreme Court would dismiss the challenge to the 14th Amendment because of past decisions that ruled children born in the United States were citizens.
In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that children born to Chinese migrants - who were themselves barred by exclusionary racial laws from becoming citizens - were U.S. citizens since they were born on U.S. soil.
The clause in the 14th Amendment that restricted birthright citizenship to those "under the jurisdiction of the United States," he added, merely excluded the children of foreign diplomats from becoming citizens.
Repeated challenges to the 14th Amendment, several civil rights experts said, had questioned the legitimacy of African American, Chinese American and Japanese American citizens. Each time, the challenge was refuted.
"This matter has been raised in every instance in a racial context," Dellinger said. "That's why we wanted a simple rule: Every new girl or boy born in this country is simply, indisputably, an American."
--Washington Post
more...
pictures Beautiful Fish Collections
GCBy3000
08-30 02:13 PM
I have read in "Fortnightly conference calls with Immigration Lawyers" pdf documnets that you can transfer from company A to company B when you are in 7th year H1 with 3years extn. Obviously I140 is approved.
The attorney says, you can switch companies and retain the PD if the earlier employer does not revoke the 140. This is known. My question is
1. Will the 3year H1B extn be valid if the 140 is revoked. If this is not valid, then the company B H1b will also be invalidated. Then you will be outof status. IS THIS TRUE?
The attorney says, you can switch companies and retain the PD if the earlier employer does not revoke the 140. This is known. My question is
1. Will the 3year H1B extn be valid if the 140 is revoked. If this is not valid, then the company B H1b will also be invalidated. Then you will be outof status. IS THIS TRUE?
dresses In this Animated Wallpaper,
sunny1000
02-27 09:37 AM
I think there K Visa - Fianc� Visa to come to US. Not sure how it works.
K visa is only for fiances of U.S citizens. GC holders have not that many options other than under FB immgration quota just like vivekjay explained.
zamoo - it has always been an issue for GC holders to marry non-U.S citizens as their spouses come under the FB quota whereas the spouses of the U.S citizens don't have quotas and so, their immigration is unrestricted under FB immigration.
K visa is only for fiances of U.S citizens. GC holders have not that many options other than under FB immgration quota just like vivekjay explained.
zamoo - it has always been an issue for GC holders to marry non-U.S citizens as their spouses come under the FB quota whereas the spouses of the U.S citizens don't have quotas and so, their immigration is unrestricted under FB immigration.
more...
makeup Moving Fishes Wallpaper.
mrsr
06-27 10:00 PM
any thoughts
girlfriend moving fishes wallpaper.
pandu_hawaldar
06-03 11:37 AM
It is called soft LUD, which happens most of times, when there is no real change in the wording inside that link but still you can see a new date. It may happen sometimes when they reindex or restructure or something in their file/database system. An LUD does not always carry description change in your case/file. I hope this helps.
Okay I registered online. It shows my I-485 application was last changed on 01/04/2008. How do I see what was changed, as when I click on that line it takes me to the page where it describes when my application was received in August'2007 etc etc... doesn't mention anything about changes done on 01/04/2008 .
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/caseStatusSearchDisplay.do;jsessionid=acb6HRI66YiE YcZ2E7oPr
Okay I registered online. It shows my I-485 application was last changed on 01/04/2008. How do I see what was changed, as when I click on that line it takes me to the page where it describes when my application was received in August'2007 etc etc... doesn't mention anything about changes done on 01/04/2008 .
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/caseStatusSearchDisplay.do;jsessionid=acb6HRI66YiE YcZ2E7oPr
hairstyles fish light Wallpaper,
gc_dedo
06-16 11:06 AM
There is no such thing as applying new labor in EB2 using EB3 PD. It is a fresh EB2 labor thats it.
When you apply for EB2 140 you send the approved EB3 140 and ask for the EB2 140 to be given the EB3 priority date.
Get your new employer to file a new labor using the Jan04 labor date.
And if your current employer withdraws your 140, it is okay as it is more than 180 days since filing your 485. your PD is locked for your own use.
These are the steps I would suggest.
1. Apply AC21 to move to new employer.
2. Apply new labor in EB2 using EB3 PD.
3. After your 140 is approved, move the existing 485 from your EB3 to EB2.
that way, you get to lock in your 485 application date too. Remember that 485 applications are processed in the order they were filed, provided the PD is curret.
So for example, if a person with PD of June 2004 applied on July 2007 and a person with June 2005 applied on June 2007, the person who applied in June 2007 gets processed first. This logic is true only if the current date is June 2005 or later. If the current date is May 2005, then the person with June 2005 does not get their application processed as the date is not current.
When you apply for EB2 140 you send the approved EB3 140 and ask for the EB2 140 to be given the EB3 priority date.
Get your new employer to file a new labor using the Jan04 labor date.
And if your current employer withdraws your 140, it is okay as it is more than 180 days since filing your 485. your PD is locked for your own use.
These are the steps I would suggest.
1. Apply AC21 to move to new employer.
2. Apply new labor in EB2 using EB3 PD.
3. After your 140 is approved, move the existing 485 from your EB3 to EB2.
that way, you get to lock in your 485 application date too. Remember that 485 applications are processed in the order they were filed, provided the PD is curret.
So for example, if a person with PD of June 2004 applied on July 2007 and a person with June 2005 applied on June 2007, the person who applied in June 2007 gets processed first. This logic is true only if the current date is June 2005 or later. If the current date is May 2005, then the person with June 2005 does not get their application processed as the date is not current.
arrarrgee
07-20 01:10 PM
what abt setting up a Business .....say a Franchisee Store? is that possible with EAD...I know its possible with H1..but the interest rates on the loan would be higher...what abt with EAD..would somone on EAD get similar benefits as one on a GC
?
?
howzatt
07-18 04:09 PM
I am trying to understand things here. To summarize,
1. If you have enough years left on your H-1 or if your I-140 is approved, there is no real need for EAD?
2. Even I have been thinking about this as I have a couple of years left on my 6-year H1B.
3. I dont think I will be changing my employer unless things change drastically. If I want to change employers, I can use the AC21 after 6 months of applying 485. In this case, transfer of H1 is OK? I dont need EAD. Correct?
Thanks.
P.S: My I-140 is not approved yet!
1. If you have enough years left on your H-1 or if your I-140 is approved, there is no real need for EAD?
2. Even I have been thinking about this as I have a couple of years left on my 6-year H1B.
3. I dont think I will be changing my employer unless things change drastically. If I want to change employers, I can use the AC21 after 6 months of applying 485. In this case, transfer of H1 is OK? I dont need EAD. Correct?
Thanks.
P.S: My I-140 is not approved yet!