immigrationmatters30
04-29 09:13 AM
There are 26 pages in this document and half page for legal EB immigrants.
Pros
1.GC for MS in STEM
2.Per country limits removed
Cons
1.No increase in number of EBs
2.Now all counties will be backloged instead of just I and C. ( Misery loves company)
Well, he has one now (or at least some sort of frame work)
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/SenateDraftProposal.pdf
Getting the Financial Regulation Bill for debate, and now going ahead with democrats only bill on immigration - hello! Sen. Reid seems to have his groove back!
Pros
1.GC for MS in STEM
2.Per country limits removed
Cons
1.No increase in number of EBs
2.Now all counties will be backloged instead of just I and C. ( Misery loves company)
Well, he has one now (or at least some sort of frame work)
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/SenateDraftProposal.pdf
Getting the Financial Regulation Bill for debate, and now going ahead with democrats only bill on immigration - hello! Sen. Reid seems to have his groove back!
wallpaper women desktop wallpaper
diptam
08-14 02:04 PM
If this Robin Williams google his name he will get too many Hits and will be amazed to see how popular/famous he is among immigrant community just by working as a mail receiver at USCIS.
Poor fellow - Polls got created in his name :rolleyes:
i am 7:55 NSC r williams too... no receipt yet :(
Poor fellow - Polls got created in his name :rolleyes:
i am 7:55 NSC r williams too... no receipt yet :(
aat0995
05-02 08:39 AM
It seems no one else is in this boat. Strange.
2011 People-girls-women-celebrities
stillhowlong
01-19 05:55 PM
As far as I know:
if your E3 (approved) priority date is current for E2 (approved), you can file 485 (in E2) requesting to use the earliest (E3) priority date. From my understanding, you may be able to do it even when your E2 is pending - but it may be better to wait till you get the E2 approved. Hope it clarifies your question.
Thanks Alvin, so you mean to say it does not matter if I do that process with new employer right?
if your E3 (approved) priority date is current for E2 (approved), you can file 485 (in E2) requesting to use the earliest (E3) priority date. From my understanding, you may be able to do it even when your E2 is pending - but it may be better to wait till you get the E2 approved. Hope it clarifies your question.
Thanks Alvin, so you mean to say it does not matter if I do that process with new employer right?
more...
sk.aggarwal
02-18 01:34 PM
Have you or your org. got any PW responses in 4-5 weeks?
Bump... please, if anyone got PW for greencard labor through the new process... how long it took??
Bump... please, if anyone got PW for greencard labor through the new process... how long it took??
sheela
09-11 01:40 AM
^^ Bump ^^ (just wanted to give some more 'air' time for this thread in hopes of catching attention from IV core )
Nice idea. Something like this should happen. I gave you green .
Nice idea. Something like this should happen. I gave you green .
more...
Blog Feeds
10-15 06:30 PM
[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
2010 free bikini women wallpapers
GC_SUCK
10-10 01:53 PM
I got my GC on 09/18/07. Now my consulting company (how sponsored my GC) is having issues with the client and client is thinking to terminate the contract.
Client want to bring me to there pay roll. In other words they are offering my permanent position.
My consulting company does not have immediate opening for me.
It is not even a month that I got my GC. And I am with the same consulting company for about 6.5 years now.
Please help me. What should I do? If I accept the offer will I get problem at citizenship stage? If I do not accept offer I will loose job and I don't know how much time I have to wait till my consulting company find job for me.
Client want to bring me to there pay roll. In other words they are offering my permanent position.
My consulting company does not have immediate opening for me.
It is not even a month that I got my GC. And I am with the same consulting company for about 6.5 years now.
Please help me. What should I do? If I accept the offer will I get problem at citizenship stage? If I do not accept offer I will loose job and I don't know how much time I have to wait till my consulting company find job for me.
more...
greyhair
09-30 05:12 PM
I cracked up reading the post. I never really understood why they call us losers and locusts.
Google translation maybe funny but i think the meaning of the post on Chinese forum is serious. When we giving money to IV which is working for everyone in the backlog, Chinese are only thinking for themselves. Scratch the, Chinese are not thinking for even themselves, they are cutting the same branch of the tree on which they are sitting. They are undermining the effort to address the green card backlog. They are trying to use fuzzy match to argue against removal of per country limits in the the process shooting themselves on the foot. If I understand their logic correctly, these Chinese are saying that we are ok if they have to wait in the backlog for years and years, as long as Indian don't get any benefit. That's just plain dumb for them to think like this.
The other day someone posted that Chinese are calling Charles Oppenheim at DOS, asking him to not advance the dates of Indians, and rather only advance the dates of Chinese, which apparently backfired.
I have many good friends from China and they are all very nice. But as a group why do we always see Chinese digging hole everywhere?
Google translation maybe funny but i think the meaning of the post on Chinese forum is serious. When we giving money to IV which is working for everyone in the backlog, Chinese are only thinking for themselves. Scratch the, Chinese are not thinking for even themselves, they are cutting the same branch of the tree on which they are sitting. They are undermining the effort to address the green card backlog. They are trying to use fuzzy match to argue against removal of per country limits in the the process shooting themselves on the foot. If I understand their logic correctly, these Chinese are saying that we are ok if they have to wait in the backlog for years and years, as long as Indian don't get any benefit. That's just plain dumb for them to think like this.
The other day someone posted that Chinese are calling Charles Oppenheim at DOS, asking him to not advance the dates of Indians, and rather only advance the dates of Chinese, which apparently backfired.
I have many good friends from China and they are all very nice. But as a group why do we always see Chinese digging hole everywhere?
hair 6 Asian Women wallpaper for
%2520hq%2520desktop%2520wallpapers%2520_thumb%255B1%255D.jpg "Women Desktop wallpapers")
chanduv23
06-05 08:50 AM
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this thread but I could not find anywhere else to post it on this website.
I filed for my initial H-1B document and the H-1B adjustment document (from full time to part time) with an immigration lawyer last year. The two processes went relatively smooth. Thinking that this lawyer was someone I could trust, I also started the PERM process with her and had my company pay half of the PERM lawyer fee up front and signed whatever paper that I was required to sign.
After she was paid, I noticed that her replies to my emails were slower and some were even neglected. I'm extremely frustrated with her change of behavior as the immigration process is really important to me as it is to every immigrant. I tried emailing her again about 3 days ago with some questions, and she neglected it again. I tried to be as understanding as possible, but I personally think this is ridiculous and I'm getting very upset. She is the only person that works at the office and she has no paralegals or office staff. So I always have to talk to her directly for everything.
Today, I actually emailed her with another email account pretending I'm someone else interested in the H-1B process, and I received a reply from her within 40 minutes. So I know she's neglecting my emails on purpose. I'm not sure if she just doesn't take care of her "paid" clients or she just has something personal against me for whatever reason. (I was always respectful to her in every way so I don't believe it's something I did)
Since I signed the paper which states that I have to pay for a large termination fee if I were to request termination of contract for whatever reason, I can't just hire a new lawyer either. What would be a good approach to resolve this situation? I thought about talking to her directly face-to-face and let her know how upset I'm about her change of behavior (which she may charge me for her time) but I don't want her to screw with my immigration documents at the same time.
First things first. Don't get stressed out. You have hired an Attorney to represent you - u r a client for the Attorney and it is their duty to work with you.
It is very common - people are very receptive before you pay and after that, they tend to slow down on you because they are spending time to bait in the next potential client.
You can report this lawyer to the bar or to AILA or probably to better Business Bereau. Folks here can guide you.
Some Attorneys are very receptive, they value and treat you well. They try their best to get back to you in a day or two. I have seen Attroneys responding to queries late night - probably thats the time they set for email responses or so.
My message to Attorneys - do please value your client. These days, immigrants have a lot of platform and power and are better informed so don't take your clients for granted. t
The better you treat your client, the better business for you.
I filed for my initial H-1B document and the H-1B adjustment document (from full time to part time) with an immigration lawyer last year. The two processes went relatively smooth. Thinking that this lawyer was someone I could trust, I also started the PERM process with her and had my company pay half of the PERM lawyer fee up front and signed whatever paper that I was required to sign.
After she was paid, I noticed that her replies to my emails were slower and some were even neglected. I'm extremely frustrated with her change of behavior as the immigration process is really important to me as it is to every immigrant. I tried emailing her again about 3 days ago with some questions, and she neglected it again. I tried to be as understanding as possible, but I personally think this is ridiculous and I'm getting very upset. She is the only person that works at the office and she has no paralegals or office staff. So I always have to talk to her directly for everything.
Today, I actually emailed her with another email account pretending I'm someone else interested in the H-1B process, and I received a reply from her within 40 minutes. So I know she's neglecting my emails on purpose. I'm not sure if she just doesn't take care of her "paid" clients or she just has something personal against me for whatever reason. (I was always respectful to her in every way so I don't believe it's something I did)
Since I signed the paper which states that I have to pay for a large termination fee if I were to request termination of contract for whatever reason, I can't just hire a new lawyer either. What would be a good approach to resolve this situation? I thought about talking to her directly face-to-face and let her know how upset I'm about her change of behavior (which she may charge me for her time) but I don't want her to screw with my immigration documents at the same time.
First things first. Don't get stressed out. You have hired an Attorney to represent you - u r a client for the Attorney and it is their duty to work with you.
It is very common - people are very receptive before you pay and after that, they tend to slow down on you because they are spending time to bait in the next potential client.
You can report this lawyer to the bar or to AILA or probably to better Business Bereau. Folks here can guide you.
Some Attorneys are very receptive, they value and treat you well. They try their best to get back to you in a day or two. I have seen Attroneys responding to queries late night - probably thats the time they set for email responses or so.
My message to Attorneys - do please value your client. These days, immigrants have a lot of platform and power and are better informed so don't take your clients for granted. t
The better you treat your client, the better business for you.
more...
centrum
09-25 02:33 AM
Hi,
I just got approved for H-1B this year and I have some questions. I'm from a small country where they do not easily let their citizens to become citizens of other counties. So unless it's for educational purpose (undergraduate/graduate), they will not renew my passport for me.
My passport expires at the end of this year, and I was wondering if it's possible to obtain the following with an expired passport:
a) H-1B extension
b) PERM
c) green card
If it's not possible to obtain any of them with an expired passport, I must enroll in a graduate school to renew my passport. (Before my passport expires) I really prefer not to do this.
I would really appreciate if you could reply with cases you've seen or experienced in the past.
Thanks in advance.
I just got approved for H-1B this year and I have some questions. I'm from a small country where they do not easily let their citizens to become citizens of other counties. So unless it's for educational purpose (undergraduate/graduate), they will not renew my passport for me.
My passport expires at the end of this year, and I was wondering if it's possible to obtain the following with an expired passport:
a) H-1B extension
b) PERM
c) green card
If it's not possible to obtain any of them with an expired passport, I must enroll in a graduate school to renew my passport. (Before my passport expires) I really prefer not to do this.
I would really appreciate if you could reply with cases you've seen or experienced in the past.
Thanks in advance.
hot Butterfly women wallpaper
eilsoe
10-22 04:26 PM
Ah, where the gals are dressed up as whores (or something) right?
more...
house China women gymnastics Desktop
onemorecame
07-23 12:14 PM
Dont know whether it matters.
But R. Mickels.
How do you know who signed your I-485?
But R. Mickels.
How do you know who signed your I-485?
tattoo desktop wallpaper women.
gujju
02-13 09:44 PM
I would rate them very high.My company uses them too .Are u filing EB2 with the same employer?.
more...
pictures Open Eas desktop wallpaper
eager_immi
02-13 02:34 PM
They r a bloodly lazy bunch they sit on ur passport and do nothing. So please take the day off and go collect it. I called them atleast a hundred times and basically our passport was ready and they have not mailed it. so please keep calling endlessly they will pickup at some point but my advice is go and collect it urself.
Hello Friends,
My current passport is expiring in Jun 07. I have applied for passport renewal at Indian Embassy (Washington D.C.) in 3rd week of Jan 07 via courier. I may have to travel urgently to India by end of this month. Just wondering if anyone recently got their passport renewed at DC and what was the duration. It will help me to take the decision about departure date. Unfortunately DC is 5 hours drive from where I live. I am not sure even if take a day off and drive to DC to collect the passport they will even give it to me on the same day. Multiple attempts to contact DC office via phone/email were not helpful. No one picks the phone and their voice mail system is always full. Any advise on what I should to do know status of my passport renewal would be appreciated.
Thank you,
------------------------
P.S : Yes, I have contributed to IV :)
Hello Friends,
My current passport is expiring in Jun 07. I have applied for passport renewal at Indian Embassy (Washington D.C.) in 3rd week of Jan 07 via courier. I may have to travel urgently to India by end of this month. Just wondering if anyone recently got their passport renewed at DC and what was the duration. It will help me to take the decision about departure date. Unfortunately DC is 5 hours drive from where I live. I am not sure even if take a day off and drive to DC to collect the passport they will even give it to me on the same day. Multiple attempts to contact DC office via phone/email were not helpful. No one picks the phone and their voice mail system is always full. Any advise on what I should to do know status of my passport renewal would be appreciated.
Thank you,
------------------------
P.S : Yes, I have contributed to IV :)
dresses miley cyrus wallpapers for
paisa
07-24 03:59 PM
Hello Guys,
My attorney send I485,AP, EAD application to USCIS with my present passport. This passport expires on August 08, 2007. Will there be any problems for this? Please let me know. Thanks......
No issues here my lawyers at Fragomen told me the same my passpory was expiring Aug 3rd 2007 infact I had my passport renewed when they were to send my 485 application. My lawyer said 485 has nothing to do with passport so no worries.
My attorney send I485,AP, EAD application to USCIS with my present passport. This passport expires on August 08, 2007. Will there be any problems for this? Please let me know. Thanks......
No issues here my lawyers at Fragomen told me the same my passpory was expiring Aug 3rd 2007 infact I had my passport renewed when they were to send my 485 application. My lawyer said 485 has nothing to do with passport so no worries.
more...
makeup desktop wallpapers women.
485_spouse
09-25 03:14 PM
She is not out of status but you need to move fast (first 180 days) and talk to some good lawyer.
In 2007 I had a long consultation with a lawyer and told about INS act 245(k)
Google it.
Furthermore. One of my co-worker was approved while his wife's case was not filled in 2007. they used 245(k) and there was no issue.
In 2007 I had a long consultation with a lawyer and told about INS act 245(k)
Google it.
Furthermore. One of my co-worker was approved while his wife's case was not filled in 2007. they used 245(k) and there was no issue.
girlfriend beautiful wallpapers women.
gparr
February 2nd, 2004, 07:17 AM
Thanks to all for your feedback. All very helpful. I should have mentioned that I captured this image during a break at a trade show and, since I'm from Illinois and any flower is appealing at this time of year, I couldn't just let them go.
Russell hit the point I was trying to get to, but apparently didn't explain very well. In this kind of shot there, by default, is not focal point in the scene and, as Russell has demonstrated, you have to create something that isn't there from the human eye perspective. He was able to achieve the necessary composition in PS and it works quite nicely. The dilemma I face with these shots is that the visual impact is the planter full of blooming flowers and attractive foliage. One option is to have the planter be the focal point of a larger scene, but in this case, the larger scene was the grounds of the Anaheim Convention Center. Not a scene I want to capture. So the image becomes what's in the planter and then the problem is, what part of what's in the planter. Obviously, I could have gone for a macro shot of one cluster of flowers, but it was the collection of flowers that was attractive. From what Russell has demonstrated, the solution seems to be a semi-macro shot. To achieve that in the camera requires a narrow DOF and placement of the chosen flower cluster at one of the "rule of thirds" points. I guess, in the final analysis, there's no real good way to get a captivating image that shows a portion of the planter with as many flowers in focus as possible. (Of course, I could carry a small cherub figurine with me on business trips to plop into planters such as this as a focal point. Plus, it would be a good conversation piece at the airport security check in. ;) ) Thanks again to jliechty, lecter, and Russell. Additional comments appreciated.
Gary
Russell hit the point I was trying to get to, but apparently didn't explain very well. In this kind of shot there, by default, is not focal point in the scene and, as Russell has demonstrated, you have to create something that isn't there from the human eye perspective. He was able to achieve the necessary composition in PS and it works quite nicely. The dilemma I face with these shots is that the visual impact is the planter full of blooming flowers and attractive foliage. One option is to have the planter be the focal point of a larger scene, but in this case, the larger scene was the grounds of the Anaheim Convention Center. Not a scene I want to capture. So the image becomes what's in the planter and then the problem is, what part of what's in the planter. Obviously, I could have gone for a macro shot of one cluster of flowers, but it was the collection of flowers that was attractive. From what Russell has demonstrated, the solution seems to be a semi-macro shot. To achieve that in the camera requires a narrow DOF and placement of the chosen flower cluster at one of the "rule of thirds" points. I guess, in the final analysis, there's no real good way to get a captivating image that shows a portion of the planter with as many flowers in focus as possible. (Of course, I could carry a small cherub figurine with me on business trips to plop into planters such as this as a focal point. Plus, it would be a good conversation piece at the airport security check in. ;) ) Thanks again to jliechty, lecter, and Russell. Additional comments appreciated.
Gary
hairstyles Download Van Helsing wallpaper
qplearn
09-30 05:27 PM
This is absolutely no-sense at all.
Texas, take about 2-3 months to approve 140 and 485. While Nebraska take about 4-5 months to approve only 140. This is not included 485 that back up from December 2, 2005.
You compare about 2-3 month processing time from one Center and another 1 year from another service center.
People there don't know how to do the mathematic or what, why keep sending everything to Nebraska still. Why don't transfer from the last person in Nebraska to Texas and have Texas start processing 485 in Queued.
We don't want people get process by Luck! or by paying more money and left other people behind.
What you think?!
Guys at Nebraska:
Don't complain; I am at Vermont, and it is by far the SLOWEST :(
It is processing I-485 from ND of June 21 2005 now!!!! Nebraska is processing I-485 of Nov 2005.
Does anybody have predictions :) for how dates will move at Vermont?
I wish there was premium procesing for 485.
qplearn
Texas, take about 2-3 months to approve 140 and 485. While Nebraska take about 4-5 months to approve only 140. This is not included 485 that back up from December 2, 2005.
You compare about 2-3 month processing time from one Center and another 1 year from another service center.
People there don't know how to do the mathematic or what, why keep sending everything to Nebraska still. Why don't transfer from the last person in Nebraska to Texas and have Texas start processing 485 in Queued.
We don't want people get process by Luck! or by paying more money and left other people behind.
What you think?!
Guys at Nebraska:
Don't complain; I am at Vermont, and it is by far the SLOWEST :(
It is processing I-485 from ND of June 21 2005 now!!!! Nebraska is processing I-485 of Nov 2005.
Does anybody have predictions :) for how dates will move at Vermont?
I wish there was premium procesing for 485.
qplearn
Steve Mitchell
January 17th, 2005, 09:47 AM
Nice job Anders. 2,3,4 and 5 are the best of these I believe. You're exactly right about practice. The more you shoot the better you will get, as you are demonstrating. Patience and alertness are the key as well. When you can't control what's happening, you have to anticipate, and be alert to catch in when it happens. Shooting from the penalty box allows from some great shots. Be alert in there though. The first time I did that a puck whistled by myhead. Thank goodness I ducked and moved my head. Water from the ice was literally on my ear and the puck hit behind me. I would have hit me square in the head.
laksmi
12-12 06:29 PM
she can go out of country but she can not return to usa, until unless she have valid visa or AP.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий