bijualex29
09-12 11:43 AM
Filed on 9th July at NSC
Got receipt on 5th Sep from WAC
EAD card ordered on 11th Sep.
Hope this will be helpful.
I have contributed to IV for there good work. I will never forget the 2-July visa feasco.
Got receipt on 5th Sep from WAC
EAD card ordered on 11th Sep.
Hope this will be helpful.
I have contributed to IV for there good work. I will never forget the 2-July visa feasco.
wallpaper The last 2 wallpapers have a
chalamurariusa
04-28 10:08 AM
Sorry to be posting on this thread I am new to this and I genuinely tried to look to post a new thread but in vain.
We applied for our GC in aug 2007. Recd a RFE for I 693 Skin test for TB on april 16th 2009. We still hv to reply to the RFE.My elder son is over 21 and is on AOS and today on the online status we saw a message.
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
On April 22, 2009 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service.
He too had recd the RFE for TB skin test. We are really worried as to what cld this mean. Has anyone ever recd a message like this. Please someone advise as to what it cld be
We applied for our GC in aug 2007. Recd a RFE for I 693 Skin test for TB on april 16th 2009. We still hv to reply to the RFE.My elder son is over 21 and is on AOS and today on the online status we saw a message.
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
On April 22, 2009 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service.
He too had recd the RFE for TB skin test. We are really worried as to what cld this mean. Has anyone ever recd a message like this. Please someone advise as to what it cld be
.jpg "cute love wallpapers for")
paskal
12-08 11:31 PM
Dear friends,
We are hoping to here from members in MN, there is much to be done yet...let us build on the energy from these last days.
Please visit the Chapters thread in the members only area and post your info and ideas in the MN chapter thread. Thanks!
OR use this thread if it is just more convenient....
We are hoping to here from members in MN, there is much to be done yet...let us build on the energy from these last days.
Please visit the Chapters thread in the members only area and post your info and ideas in the MN chapter thread. Thanks!
OR use this thread if it is just more convenient....
2011 hot cute love wallpaper. anime
Canadian_Dream
11-02 01:03 PM
Berry, Appleman & Leiden LLP is probably the best immigration law firm in West Coast.
http://www.usabal.com/
In case you don't about the class action law suit of Chintakuntla et al. v. INS, please check the link:
http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/news269.htm
http://www.usabal.com/
In case you don't about the class action law suit of Chintakuntla et al. v. INS, please check the link:
http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/news269.htm
more...
.jpg "Cute Love Wallpapers with")
achu
07-23 11:23 AM
What is the expected OS? Is it windows? Is it free?
ak_2006
04-30 05:16 PM
http://www.americasvoiceonline.org/blog/entry/liveblogging_today_starting_at_2pm_est_senate_hear ing_on_immigration_reform/
more...
sid_das
04-21 06:15 PM
yes, i am in IT , data warehousing .. i dont know why it didnt go through. any idea if i can file a new H1 while appealing the denial? thanks
2010 cute love wallpapers for
.jpg "love quotes wallpaper desktop")
abandookwala63
03-19 01:16 PM
I am working for company A for the past 8 years. they are closing down. I have got EAD and another job offer in the same category. My lawyer told me to transfer the H1 on the new employee. I told him about 6 years cap.(In case something goes wrong with my AOS i cannot stay as my 6 years on H1 are over). He told me that still i can have my 1 year extensions, does not matter even my 6 years are over. On IV people are discussing that once your 6 years cap is over and AOS is denied you cannot get extensions. Can somebody please clear up my situation. Thanks
more...
Hinglish
06-13 12:22 PM
Not to derail this discussion ...but the post below is classic hinglish !! :D
When did processing time became on or after your Receipt Date: 06/06/07 and your Notice Date: 06/15/2008.
Is it because file misplaced - too many followups (3 SRs, Infopass, letters, calling IO)? At lease people have been able to find whether name check is cleared on not - could you figureout that? If not, I think, there is reason to be concerned.
Try simple question - name check is cleared or not?
When did processing time became on or after your Receipt Date: 06/06/07 and your Notice Date: 06/15/2008.
Is it because file misplaced - too many followups (3 SRs, Infopass, letters, calling IO)? At lease people have been able to find whether name check is cleared on not - could you figureout that? If not, I think, there is reason to be concerned.
Try simple question - name check is cleared or not?
hair And Love Wallpapers For
rayen
05-06 06:04 PM
Case: H1B transfer Denial
One of my friends H-1B transfer got denied. The case is he has a H-1(under masters quota) from Oct 2008 with a previous employer and got a new job from Jan 2009 so applied for a transfer thru them. He has been working from last July2008 and has all the paystubs from july2008-dec2008. So applied the transfer with all the paystubs. He got an RFE in March asking to provide W-2 for last year , paystubs , client letters etc. After replying to RFE after 1 month got a denial from USCIS in the website. HE is still waiitng for formal letter from them. So wat are the options available ??
Can he go back to previous employer ?
Can he file a motion on why they rejected the transfer? If even the motion gets rejected can we still go back to previous employer ?
Please let me know it is kind of urgent...
One of my friends H-1B transfer got denied. The case is he has a H-1(under masters quota) from Oct 2008 with a previous employer and got a new job from Jan 2009 so applied for a transfer thru them. He has been working from last July2008 and has all the paystubs from july2008-dec2008. So applied the transfer with all the paystubs. He got an RFE in March asking to provide W-2 for last year , paystubs , client letters etc. After replying to RFE after 1 month got a denial from USCIS in the website. HE is still waiitng for formal letter from them. So wat are the options available ??
Can he go back to previous employer ?
Can he file a motion on why they rejected the transfer? If even the motion gets rejected can we still go back to previous employer ?
Please let me know it is kind of urgent...
more...
STAmisha
11-17 05:47 PM
Please do post it.
I will also follow up with my lawyer.
Thanks
I will also follow up with my lawyer.
Thanks
hot Cute Love Wallpapers with
MatsP
November 9th, 2004, 07:37 AM
Hi Mandy, and welcome to Dphoto.
The choice of DSLR's is not an easy one.
By all accounts, the Digital Rebel/300D is an excellent camera.
So is the Olympus, as far as I know.
The Canon will give you a greater selection of lenses.
There's also another great choice in the Nikon D70.
Why would one be better than the other? Depends on what you want, really. All of them take good photos.
Canon probably have THE best selection of lenses, all the way from cheap-n-cheerful to expen$ive professional level where a single lens will break your budget several times over. There's also a good selection of other accessories, such as a number of flash-guns, and other bits and pieces.
At $779.95 (after rebate) from B&H Photo (this is not an endorsement), it leaves you with a small lump of money to extend the kit, or spare cash for your trip.
The big advantage on the Nikon D70 compared to Canon would be it's ability to take more fast shots in a row. That would be useful if you're after snapping sports/action shots, but if you just want to take a few shots of beutiful land/streetscapes, your friends/family and the odd young one having a go at baseball, it's not really an advantage as such. There may be some other features that I don't know about, but I would think those differences are minor. On the other hand, it's a little bit out of your budget.
The big advantage on Olympus side is the smaller form-factor for the lenses. I'm pretty sure that Olympus would want it to stay, and it's very unlikely to disappear in the next few years. If anything, it's most likely a forward path, but who knows... I'm pretty sure both Canon and Nikon are watching carefully.
I own the EOS 10D, because I wanted the sports ability, which is slightly better on the 10D compared to the Digital Rebel. But I was locked into Canon from owning a fair amount of lenses that would cost MUCH more than the cost of the camera body to replace. I've been "collecting" those lenses for some time. And to sell used lenses to buy similar ones from another brand gets pretty expensive, so once you've selected a brand, you need a much bigger advantage from another brand to switch.
That doesn't apply when the photographer gets paid for the pictures taken, especially since the equipment in this case often gets quite a bit of (accidental) abuse, and needs replacing with much shorter intervals than the amateurs would anyway. This is why Canon pretty much won overnight on the transition to Autofocus. Canon had a better solution than Nikon, but they also "forced" a change of lenses. The professionals jumped on the Canon system because it gave them a small advantage of getting a better shot, even if they used to have a Nikon before they changed over].
Anyway, I'm not sure this is much help, but perhaps gives you a few pointers in the right direction.
Also, I would advice that you get the camera at least a few weeks before you go on vacation, so that you can get used to the camera.
--
Mats
The choice of DSLR's is not an easy one.
By all accounts, the Digital Rebel/300D is an excellent camera.
So is the Olympus, as far as I know.
The Canon will give you a greater selection of lenses.
There's also another great choice in the Nikon D70.
Why would one be better than the other? Depends on what you want, really. All of them take good photos.
Canon probably have THE best selection of lenses, all the way from cheap-n-cheerful to expen$ive professional level where a single lens will break your budget several times over. There's also a good selection of other accessories, such as a number of flash-guns, and other bits and pieces.
At $779.95 (after rebate) from B&H Photo (this is not an endorsement), it leaves you with a small lump of money to extend the kit, or spare cash for your trip.
The big advantage on the Nikon D70 compared to Canon would be it's ability to take more fast shots in a row. That would be useful if you're after snapping sports/action shots, but if you just want to take a few shots of beutiful land/streetscapes, your friends/family and the odd young one having a go at baseball, it's not really an advantage as such. There may be some other features that I don't know about, but I would think those differences are minor. On the other hand, it's a little bit out of your budget.
The big advantage on Olympus side is the smaller form-factor for the lenses. I'm pretty sure that Olympus would want it to stay, and it's very unlikely to disappear in the next few years. If anything, it's most likely a forward path, but who knows... I'm pretty sure both Canon and Nikon are watching carefully.
I own the EOS 10D, because I wanted the sports ability, which is slightly better on the 10D compared to the Digital Rebel. But I was locked into Canon from owning a fair amount of lenses that would cost MUCH more than the cost of the camera body to replace. I've been "collecting" those lenses for some time. And to sell used lenses to buy similar ones from another brand gets pretty expensive, so once you've selected a brand, you need a much bigger advantage from another brand to switch.
That doesn't apply when the photographer gets paid for the pictures taken, especially since the equipment in this case often gets quite a bit of (accidental) abuse, and needs replacing with much shorter intervals than the amateurs would anyway. This is why Canon pretty much won overnight on the transition to Autofocus. Canon had a better solution than Nikon, but they also "forced" a change of lenses. The professionals jumped on the Canon system because it gave them a small advantage of getting a better shot, even if they used to have a Nikon before they changed over].
Anyway, I'm not sure this is much help, but perhaps gives you a few pointers in the right direction.
Also, I would advice that you get the camera at least a few weeks before you go on vacation, so that you can get used to the camera.
--
Mats
more...
house cute love wallpaper desktop.
.jpg "love wallpapers for desktop")
sameerkhan7860
07-02 11:22 PM
I wrote to cnn.com highlighting the plight of us aspiring "legal" immigrants, if cnn won't cover it, I am planning to write to Lou Dobbs, if I am given the opportunity to be come a naturalized citizen, he is definitely going to listen to me :)
tattoo love desktop wallpapers with
sac-r-ten
07-28 10:19 AM
I think snathan is correct. if you look at the 485 denial letter it should say something related to EAD is invalid or something like that.
Sorry about your situation and Good luck.
Sorry about your situation and Good luck.
more...
pictures cute love wallpapers for
sdrblr
05-10 10:46 AM
I sent one for my daughter's PIO 2 weeks ago and got it back on the 6th biz day. They do a great job for $12 service fee :)
dresses love quotes for desktop. cute
avi
02-15 02:05 PM
I am in similar situation. I have received EAD and AP but planning to move on, using H1-B transfer.
If I use H1-B transfer, have I to ask my new employer to do PERM again and then I-140??
Or
Is it just enough to send a AC-21 letter to USCIS that I chnaged to a new job which is similar to the one for which I got PERM & I-140 approval.
Please advise.
If you have completed your 180 days with your 'parent' company.. then you are safe!
It's safer to get H1 transfer as mentioned by seltzer above
Your new company should be able to take care of AOS transfer for you which means change of representation - i.e. a new attorney representing your AOS case now AND change of job!
I'm going through that process right now!
If I use H1-B transfer, have I to ask my new employer to do PERM again and then I-140??
Or
Is it just enough to send a AC-21 letter to USCIS that I chnaged to a new job which is similar to the one for which I got PERM & I-140 approval.
Please advise.
If you have completed your 180 days with your 'parent' company.. then you are safe!
It's safer to get H1 transfer as mentioned by seltzer above
Your new company should be able to take care of AOS transfer for you which means change of representation - i.e. a new attorney representing your AOS case now AND change of job!
I'm going through that process right now!
more...
makeup cute love wallpaper desktop.
sac-r-ten
07-28 10:19 AM
I think snathan is correct. if you look at the 485 denial letter it should say something related to EAD is invalid or something like that.
Sorry about your situation and Good luck.
Sorry about your situation and Good luck.
girlfriend emo love wallpapers for
.jpg "cute love wallpaper desktop.")
ca_immigrant
05-10 11:49 AM
applies to me too, as I came in this thread to read this post :D
so true hawaldar sahib !! then applies to me too, I am replying to this thread !!!
BTW...hawaldar sahib , aap kuch kaar nahi sakte kya ? hawldar ho...? kuch tho karo yaar !!!:)
(transalation, hawaldar means police, I am requesting the cop to so something aobut it)
so true hawaldar sahib !! then applies to me too, I am replying to this thread !!!
BTW...hawaldar sahib , aap kuch kaar nahi sakte kya ? hawldar ho...? kuch tho karo yaar !!!:)
(transalation, hawaldar means police, I am requesting the cop to so something aobut it)
hairstyles cute love wallpaper desktop.
.jpg "cute love wallpapers for")
chanduv23
09-14 04:50 PM
Come on folks - follow your heart
SEE YOU ALL THERE IN DC
SEE YOU ALL THERE IN DC
diptam
08-18 12:27 PM
In Jun-July 2008 they will pass the unused Visa for Fiscal 2008 to India/China/Mexico/Philippines.So according to NY Times if 300K filed - then we July 2nd -Aug 17th 2007 filers will get GC within 2-3 yrs ? ( 300K/140K yearly)
I might be missing something - the real picture is not so good.
out of 300K applications ,may be 150K apps are from indians , then it'll take 150K/10K = 15 years for the one who applied in July/Aug 07.
I might be missing something - the real picture is not so good.
out of 300K applications ,may be 150K apps are from indians , then it'll take 150K/10K = 15 years for the one who applied in July/Aug 07.
eb3India
09-25 10:19 AM
Here is the mail from AILA,
September 25, 2006
Dear Immigration Advocates-
Your help is STILL needed TODAY! Senate Appropriators will meet late THIS AFTERNOON to decide if enforcement-only bills will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's appropriations package. Urge your Senators to oppose efforts to attach anti-immigration measures to this must-pass bill. Call or email your Senators TODAY - encourage them to weigh-in with Senate Appropriators about this urgent matter.
You can find general information about the three bills below and a section-by-section analysis of each one on InfoNet.
Email your Senators through Contact Congress on AILA's website. We've already created a sample letter for you to send. All you need to do is enter your zip code, hit send, and your voice will be heard in Congress.
Call your Senators, you can find their telephone numbers in our Congressional Directory and you can use these talking points to help you when you call:
� Congress should stop playing politics with immigration and pass comprehensive immigration reform. These enforcement-only bills will do nothing to enhance border security and will not move us one inch closer to fixing our broken immigration system.
� Attaching these bills to DHS appropriations circumvents the legislative process on an issue of critical national importance; it undermines the intense and unflagging efforts of the Senate to solve this crisis; and it rewards the House for spending the summer attacking the Senate while abdicating its responsibility to the American people.
� Senators should forcefully oppose this effort by the House to nullify the Senate's bi-partison solution. If the Senate acquiesces on these provisions, the House will only be emboldened and will never return to debate comprehensive reform. This will not be "enforcement-first", it will be "enforcement-only."
� For laws to work, they must be realistic and fair. Our current immigration laws are neither: proposals like these that ignore the reality that immigrants come here to work and to be with their families are destined to fail.
� Giving the government unchecked powers to punish immigrants, and making local police chase after immigrants, will only drive undocumented immigrants further underground. It will not fix the problem; it will make matters worse.
We called you to action last week to alert you to an underhanded political strategy from immigration restrictionists to attach three enforcement-only bills to the DHS appropriations bill, a bill that must pass this year. You and your colleagues sent close to 2,000 letters to Congress, but we'll need more letters and phone calls in order to ensure that Senate Appropriators exclude these measures from the bill.
Leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives are working behind closed doors and using procedural mechanisms to attach enforcement-only provisions contained in three bills (H.R. 6094, H.R. 6095, and H.R. 4830) to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, a piece of legislation that must pass this year. Although House leaders label these bills "border security" legislation, they are in fact harsh enforcement measures lifted from Rep. Sensenbrenner's H.R. 4437 that endanger due process rights and do little to make our borders more secure. You can find general information about the three bills below and a section-by-section analysis of each one on InfoNet.
If these provisions are attached to the must-pass DHS bill, it will be nearly impossible to defeat them. Our best defense against this backdoor strategy is to put pressure on each U.S. Senator and encourage them to oppose any attempt to attach, or further these three enforcement-only bills. We're working hard in Washington to derail these political machinations, but we can't do it alone. We need your help. Please email or call both of your Senators today.
Over the summer House leadership used dozens of faux hearings to stage public displays of aversion to immigration reform. While they kept the media busy and their restrictionist base roiled, they failed to change the minds of the majority of Americans who support a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system. Nor did they succeed in backing down the U.S. Senators who supported S. 2611, a strong step towards comprehensive immigration reform. Now that House leaders know that the full Senate won't pass their enforcement-only agenda, they have resorted to closed-door politicking. We must fight to prevent the breach of justice that would result from attaching these enforcement-only bills to must-pass legislation.
Please call and email your Senators today. Now is the time for action.
Sincerely,
Marshall
Marshall Fitz
Director of Advocacy, AILA
Email Marshall
The enforcement-only provisions are:
� Sections 101 and 102 of the Dangerous Alien Detention Act contained in H.R. 6094, which seek to legitimize the practice of indefinite detention of aliens awaiting removal, despite Supreme Court decisions requiring elimination of this practice;
� Section 201 of the Criminal Alien Removal Act contained in H.R. 6094, which would expand the use of expedited removal proceedings to individuals already in the United States - even individuals who have resided here for years - in ways that would significantly increase the risk of deporting innocent people;
� Sections 301-303 of the Alien Gang Removal Act contained in H.R. 6094, which would grant unfettered discretion to the executive branch to designate "criminal street gangs" and then strip members of such gangs of virtually all rights;
� Section 101 of H.R. 6095, which gives state and local police authority to investigate, arrest, and detain noncitizens for civil violations of immigration status;
� Sections 301 and 302 of the Ending Catch and Release Act contained in H.R. 6095, which would limit the power of federal courts to grant injunctive relief in civil immigration proceedings, despite acknowledgement by DOJ that such relief does not interfere with efforts to end the practice of catch-and-release.
September 25, 2006
Dear Immigration Advocates-
Your help is STILL needed TODAY! Senate Appropriators will meet late THIS AFTERNOON to decide if enforcement-only bills will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's appropriations package. Urge your Senators to oppose efforts to attach anti-immigration measures to this must-pass bill. Call or email your Senators TODAY - encourage them to weigh-in with Senate Appropriators about this urgent matter.
You can find general information about the three bills below and a section-by-section analysis of each one on InfoNet.
Email your Senators through Contact Congress on AILA's website. We've already created a sample letter for you to send. All you need to do is enter your zip code, hit send, and your voice will be heard in Congress.
Call your Senators, you can find their telephone numbers in our Congressional Directory and you can use these talking points to help you when you call:
� Congress should stop playing politics with immigration and pass comprehensive immigration reform. These enforcement-only bills will do nothing to enhance border security and will not move us one inch closer to fixing our broken immigration system.
� Attaching these bills to DHS appropriations circumvents the legislative process on an issue of critical national importance; it undermines the intense and unflagging efforts of the Senate to solve this crisis; and it rewards the House for spending the summer attacking the Senate while abdicating its responsibility to the American people.
� Senators should forcefully oppose this effort by the House to nullify the Senate's bi-partison solution. If the Senate acquiesces on these provisions, the House will only be emboldened and will never return to debate comprehensive reform. This will not be "enforcement-first", it will be "enforcement-only."
� For laws to work, they must be realistic and fair. Our current immigration laws are neither: proposals like these that ignore the reality that immigrants come here to work and to be with their families are destined to fail.
� Giving the government unchecked powers to punish immigrants, and making local police chase after immigrants, will only drive undocumented immigrants further underground. It will not fix the problem; it will make matters worse.
We called you to action last week to alert you to an underhanded political strategy from immigration restrictionists to attach three enforcement-only bills to the DHS appropriations bill, a bill that must pass this year. You and your colleagues sent close to 2,000 letters to Congress, but we'll need more letters and phone calls in order to ensure that Senate Appropriators exclude these measures from the bill.
Leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives are working behind closed doors and using procedural mechanisms to attach enforcement-only provisions contained in three bills (H.R. 6094, H.R. 6095, and H.R. 4830) to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, a piece of legislation that must pass this year. Although House leaders label these bills "border security" legislation, they are in fact harsh enforcement measures lifted from Rep. Sensenbrenner's H.R. 4437 that endanger due process rights and do little to make our borders more secure. You can find general information about the three bills below and a section-by-section analysis of each one on InfoNet.
If these provisions are attached to the must-pass DHS bill, it will be nearly impossible to defeat them. Our best defense against this backdoor strategy is to put pressure on each U.S. Senator and encourage them to oppose any attempt to attach, or further these three enforcement-only bills. We're working hard in Washington to derail these political machinations, but we can't do it alone. We need your help. Please email or call both of your Senators today.
Over the summer House leadership used dozens of faux hearings to stage public displays of aversion to immigration reform. While they kept the media busy and their restrictionist base roiled, they failed to change the minds of the majority of Americans who support a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system. Nor did they succeed in backing down the U.S. Senators who supported S. 2611, a strong step towards comprehensive immigration reform. Now that House leaders know that the full Senate won't pass their enforcement-only agenda, they have resorted to closed-door politicking. We must fight to prevent the breach of justice that would result from attaching these enforcement-only bills to must-pass legislation.
Please call and email your Senators today. Now is the time for action.
Sincerely,
Marshall
Marshall Fitz
Director of Advocacy, AILA
Email Marshall
The enforcement-only provisions are:
� Sections 101 and 102 of the Dangerous Alien Detention Act contained in H.R. 6094, which seek to legitimize the practice of indefinite detention of aliens awaiting removal, despite Supreme Court decisions requiring elimination of this practice;
� Section 201 of the Criminal Alien Removal Act contained in H.R. 6094, which would expand the use of expedited removal proceedings to individuals already in the United States - even individuals who have resided here for years - in ways that would significantly increase the risk of deporting innocent people;
� Sections 301-303 of the Alien Gang Removal Act contained in H.R. 6094, which would grant unfettered discretion to the executive branch to designate "criminal street gangs" and then strip members of such gangs of virtually all rights;
� Section 101 of H.R. 6095, which gives state and local police authority to investigate, arrest, and detain noncitizens for civil violations of immigration status;
� Sections 301 and 302 of the Ending Catch and Release Act contained in H.R. 6095, which would limit the power of federal courts to grant injunctive relief in civil immigration proceedings, despite acknowledgement by DOJ that such relief does not interfere with efforts to end the practice of catch-and-release.
0 comments:
Post a Comment