mrdelhiite
08-07 10:57 AM
Though its not mentioned it is good file I-134. You are not eligible for I-864.
Yes u are right about I-864. Any employement based green card like ours ( EB2/EB3) should not file it. Here is the text from the I864 form -->
Employment-based preference immigrants in cases onlywhen a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident relativefiled the immigrant visa petition or such relative has asignificant ownership interest (five percent or more) in theentity that filed the petition.
Thanks a ton for your help guys. :-)
-M
Yes u are right about I-864. Any employement based green card like ours ( EB2/EB3) should not file it. Here is the text from the I864 form -->
Employment-based preference immigrants in cases onlywhen a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident relativefiled the immigrant visa petition or such relative has asignificant ownership interest (five percent or more) in theentity that filed the petition.
Thanks a ton for your help guys. :-)
-M
wallpaper abstract wallpaper
sands_14
06-11 01:20 PM
Please refrain from saying such a thing for President.
He might have made mistakes but he has been a tough one for terrorists.Since Sep11,2001,he has kept the ppl safe.
6 years is a big time.
If he is trying something beneficial for Immigrants,lets support him and ask him to support our cause.
I think we should send faxes/emails to him to show our support and I am sure he will get our amendment passed.
Lets give this a try.I am sure he will make no more mistakes as these are some last things which can give a lot of credibility back to his Presidentship.
He might have made mistakes but he has been a tough one for terrorists.Since Sep11,2001,he has kept the ppl safe.
6 years is a big time.
If he is trying something beneficial for Immigrants,lets support him and ask him to support our cause.
I think we should send faxes/emails to him to show our support and I am sure he will get our amendment passed.
Lets give this a try.I am sure he will make no more mistakes as these are some last things which can give a lot of credibility back to his Presidentship.
rb_248
09-10 03:25 PM
Got the cards in the mail. My online case status says the application is still pending.
Folks (those whose PDs are current this month),
Check with your attorney, in your mail boxes along with the online USCIS case status. You may get the good news in your mail box or from your attorney's office before your status is updated online.
This is what my attorney had to say:
The USCIS online status system is maintained by contract workers and is often inaccurate.
Online status got updated today. Snail mail is faster than email - happens only with USCIS. Anyways, my journey is over. Good luck to others.
Folks (those whose PDs are current this month),
Check with your attorney, in your mail boxes along with the online USCIS case status. You may get the good news in your mail box or from your attorney's office before your status is updated online.
This is what my attorney had to say:
The USCIS online status system is maintained by contract workers and is often inaccurate.
Online status got updated today. Snail mail is faster than email - happens only with USCIS. Anyways, my journey is over. Good luck to others.
2011 abstract wallpaper art gallery
.jpg "3d abstract wallpaper.")
kaisersose
08-06 09:19 AM
capturing visa numbers would put an end to our misery. and increasing the employment based visa will pave way for future immigrants. handling a few thousand more cases is not a big deal for USCIS(there may be performance issues but not like difficulty of hiring more people to do the stuff!). don't get panicky about the number. it should be lot less than you would think.
I think 700K is an exaggeration too. One top attorney was saying that he has filed only a few hundred cases in July. if you assign an average of 250 cases for every attorney in the US, we need two thousand attorneys to arrive at 500K.
If DOS/USCIS can recapture unused visa numbers and stop assigning visa numbers to family members of EB category applicants, I think that will work very well without increasing EB quota.
I think 700K is an exaggeration too. One top attorney was saying that he has filed only a few hundred cases in July. if you assign an average of 250 cases for every attorney in the US, we need two thousand attorneys to arrive at 500K.
If DOS/USCIS can recapture unused visa numbers and stop assigning visa numbers to family members of EB category applicants, I think that will work very well without increasing EB quota.
more...
acecupid
07-16 06:24 PM
They have been talking about this lawsuit for a long time now. I wonder when they will actually file it. Though they claim that they will file it this week, I would trust them only when they actually do file the lawsuit.:D
garybanz
06-02 04:21 PM
Thats a really bad idea!!
Tell the new employer that you need H1 to work for them, if they don't want to do it then find another job or stick to your current job.
It sucks but that's the law.
Regards.
Tell the new employer that you need H1 to work for them, if they don't want to do it then find another job or stick to your current job.
It sucks but that's the law.
Regards.
more...
Munshi75
04-07 11:00 AM
I am almost sure that if your work place (physical presence ) happens to be at a Not-for -profit organization, you case would be a cap-exempt one. However, last year USCIS and lawyers association had a lengthy debate about the legal -wordings, over this issue and i have no idea what happened afterwards
2010 abstract designs wallpaper.
CRAZYMONK
07-20 03:24 PM
Did you guys (@Sanjay, @linuxra, @Suvendra, @Optimizer) hear any thing back from USCIS? Any updates on your Case?
more...
mhtanim
02-02 02:59 AM
She HAS to use AP. There is no choice of entering on F1. If she enters using F1 visa, it means she has abandoned her I-485. It will create problems later during I-485 adjudication.
Once she enters on AP, she loses F1 status immediately. Then, she should inform her school. School will terminate her F1 status in the SEVIS database.
She can continue studying showing I-485 receipt. EAD card will be her evidence of status.
Once in I-485 AOS status, she will be eligible for resident tuition fees and will no longer have to pay non-resident tuition fees.
I second this. Unlike H-1B or H4 which are dual intent, F1 is not. After filing I-485, entering in the U.S. as F1 may cause complexities. I would suggest that you talk to a good immigration attorney.
Once she enters on AP, she loses F1 status immediately. Then, she should inform her school. School will terminate her F1 status in the SEVIS database.
She can continue studying showing I-485 receipt. EAD card will be her evidence of status.
Once in I-485 AOS status, she will be eligible for resident tuition fees and will no longer have to pay non-resident tuition fees.
I second this. Unlike H-1B or H4 which are dual intent, F1 is not. After filing I-485, entering in the U.S. as F1 may cause complexities. I would suggest that you talk to a good immigration attorney.
hair 3d abstract wallpaper.
mdforgc
05-19 04:48 AM
I am not a lawyer, just an immigrant who waded thru these, stil pending GC 485 filed. The issue is, if your employer revokes your 140 before it is approved, or worse yet, if it is not filed, I dont know what visa u r on or how much is left on it. In any case, from my experience, you have to be able to know and track ur application once it is filed, as in my experience there is an unholy nexus betwween employers and lawyers, not to mention the inherent delaying nature of these immigration lawyers. Points
1. Be able to track ur application on USCIS website with the receipt number
2. Do sweettalking with the employer till the 140 is filed and approved, then it is safest to stay for 6 months with your employer, then he can do diddly squat to you if u r able to file 485 and get an EAD. I take it that you are not affected by retrogression.
1. Be able to track ur application on USCIS website with the receipt number
2. Do sweettalking with the employer till the 140 is filed and approved, then it is safest to stay for 6 months with your employer, then he can do diddly squat to you if u r able to file 485 and get an EAD. I take it that you are not affected by retrogression.
more...
monkeyman
09-27 10:45 AM
Is there anyway we can help the family featured in this thread? Like helping them with funds to hire a good lawyer or something on those lines? Reading all the threads, I am somehow thinking of going for the Indian dream now (Yes, I have the Indian citizenship)!!! 6 years and my wife still does not know if she can live in this country or not!!!
hot Green Abstract Wallpaper
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
house Abstract Wallpaper Screensaver
drona
11-15 02:51 PM
We are actively meeting with lawmakers across Southern California in OC, LA and San Diego. New members, please sign in to our local chapter, details are in my signature. Join in on local lawmakers meetings and help in raising awareness of our issues. We have experienced members in our group who can provide guidance and answer all your questions if you have never done anything like this before. We do need active members in various constituencies though, to help us reach out to all the lawmakers in our region. Read about our local lobbying activities on Southern California yahoo groups and perhaps you could contribute something to our efforts.
tattoo Download Abstract Wallpaper
funny
09-16 02:05 PM
^bump^ ^bump^
more...
pictures orange abstract wallpapers
ashkam
03-19 02:05 PM
low hanging fruit (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=I-485+low-hanging+fruit&btnG=Google+Search)
dresses free abstract wallpapers.
furiouspride
08-13 08:18 PM
I have heard for short term consulting projects, they are supposed to provide the duration of a project and say, it is for 3 months, h1 gets approved for 3 months
Next project, get a new h1, so, if you add that up, they can collect 600 Mil
and the client will most likely go belly up :D
Next project, get a new h1, so, if you add that up, they can collect 600 Mil
and the client will most likely go belly up :D
more...
makeup Abstract Lines Background
santb1975
02-14 05:12 PM
and we can.
Great to see this thread... gotta keep it on top!
TOGETHER, WE SHALL BRING HOME THE TROPHY!
Great to see this thread... gotta keep it on top!
TOGETHER, WE SHALL BRING HOME THE TROPHY!
girlfriend Abstract Wallpaper: Illusive
sangeethak31
07-14 08:33 PM
Hi,
Fortunately, I am able to get hold one of my ex-collegues. Is one co-affidavit letter enough?
Thanks in advance.
Sangeetha K
Fortunately, I am able to get hold one of my ex-collegues. Is one co-affidavit letter enough?
Thanks in advance.
Sangeetha K
hairstyles Hearts For Abstract Wallpapers
jungalee43
06-29 09:05 PM
I have used AC21 replied to all the RFEs about it. Laast year my attorney delayed renewal of my EAD and immediately 485 petition started moving and landed in National benefits Center for scheduling an interview.
In 60 days after receiving the case the NBC has scheduled this initial interview, only for me.
Additionally what is worrying me is that they are vague on what documents they want.
They say if this is marriage based GC your spouse should attend. Or of parent-child based GC the petitioning parents or child should attend.
They have specifially mentioned medicals if not already submitted, birth certificate, returns, employers letter, EADs, travel documents, I-94 and then they say all supporting documents submitted with the application. What do they mean? Is this because they don't know what they are looking for? on top of this the words "initial interview" have confused me.
I guess the cases that are pre-adjucated are called for interview.
In 60 days after receiving the case the NBC has scheduled this initial interview, only for me.
Additionally what is worrying me is that they are vague on what documents they want.
They say if this is marriage based GC your spouse should attend. Or of parent-child based GC the petitioning parents or child should attend.
They have specifially mentioned medicals if not already submitted, birth certificate, returns, employers letter, EADs, travel documents, I-94 and then they say all supporting documents submitted with the application. What do they mean? Is this because they don't know what they are looking for? on top of this the words "initial interview" have confused me.
I guess the cases that are pre-adjucated are called for interview.
sunny1000
06-11 05:39 PM
Sunny1000,
Please be careful before replying. If you do not know, don't answer.
I have seen numerous posts that say, you can get a 3 yrs H-1 based on your previous company's I-140. (of course, it should not have been revoked). This is based on peoples experience. So don't confuse other people if you are not sure.
Don't tell me what I need to do. This is not a "lawyers only" forum where I have to give the legally correct answer. Based on what he described, I gave the best answer I could think of, that too after nobody answered and he bumped it up.
Re-read my post. As I said, it was my view and of course, there are better answers than mine (desi3933 for instance). If you don't like my answer, ignore and move on.
Please be careful before replying. If you do not know, don't answer.
I have seen numerous posts that say, you can get a 3 yrs H-1 based on your previous company's I-140. (of course, it should not have been revoked). This is based on peoples experience. So don't confuse other people if you are not sure.
Don't tell me what I need to do. This is not a "lawyers only" forum where I have to give the legally correct answer. Based on what he described, I gave the best answer I could think of, that too after nobody answered and he bumped it up.
Re-read my post. As I said, it was my view and of course, there are better answers than mine (desi3933 for instance). If you don't like my answer, ignore and move on.
hemasar
06-22 09:38 AM
Due to time contraints doctor sent me for a chest x-ray and skipped the TB skin test. Chest x-ray came back negative. Question: Is a TB skin test required if a chest x-ray is negative? No remarks were made as to why TB skin test was not given. Should suggest, to a reasonable person, that no active TB is present
My colleague told me that he took only chest X-ray and not done skin test he got his GC.
My colleague told me that he took only chest X-ray and not done skin test he got his GC.
No comments:
Post a Comment