JunRN
12-28 09:32 AM
Delete your cookies. Hit the "back" button showed on the USCIS page (not the "back" button of your internet browser) and then, try it again.
That should work.
That should work.
wallpaper traditional house plans in
nonimmigrant
03-31 06:16 PM
Congratulations. Enjoy your freedom.
What is the process did you followed to port from EB3 to EB2 ?
New Labor with EB2 Job requirements
I-140 Approval
Port Over EB3 priority to EB2 after I-140 Approval
(or)
Do we have any other route to port over from EB3 to EB2.
What is the process did you followed to port from EB3 to EB2 ?
New Labor with EB2 Job requirements
I-140 Approval
Port Over EB3 priority to EB2 after I-140 Approval
(or)
Do we have any other route to port over from EB3 to EB2.
shahuja
02-05 04:06 PM
hello all,
i will really really appreciate your posts..
its been 23rd day..H1B renewal..New Delhi..still waiting for PP..i got no slip ..no warning to wait ..nothing..
But now i think its not stuck due to PIMS..it could be anything ?? some admin processing ? some security check ? some name check ??
How do we differentiate what are our passports held up for..COULD THIS BE CALLED 221(g)..i read in forums..221g can take forever ??
-Shahuja
i will really really appreciate your posts..
its been 23rd day..H1B renewal..New Delhi..still waiting for PP..i got no slip ..no warning to wait ..nothing..
But now i think its not stuck due to PIMS..it could be anything ?? some admin processing ? some security check ? some name check ??
How do we differentiate what are our passports held up for..COULD THIS BE CALLED 221(g)..i read in forums..221g can take forever ??
-Shahuja
2011 Posted by Indian Home Plans
gc28262
12-19 12:03 PM
Not before you give yours back. you are a temp anyways. you don't even have to surrender your gc.
Practice what you preach.
BTW myself and majority of members on this forum hasn't replaced any American worker.
Practice what you preach.
BTW myself and majority of members on this forum hasn't replaced any American worker.
more...
masterji
09-22 09:25 PM
Did you guys have to go through FP for the APs? Will they take FP again even if they have done that before.
martinvisalaw
06-15 04:52 PM
Dear Ms. Martin:
Hello. Thank you for your timely and to-the-point reply. I will file for I-485 petition (family-based) as soon as my PD becomes current. A couple of questions:
1. I know for family-based I-485, my sponsor (my father) needs to show financial support through I-864 (Affidavit of Support). What should I do in unlikely case that my father lost his engineer position in his company? My parents actually own their house (no loan, about 250K house) and have decent amount of money for retirement. Is this enough to convince USCIS?
2. National Visa Center sent my father a notice when USCIS transferred the approved I-130 application to NVC. The notice stated case number was assigned and asked us not to make travel arrangements. Obviously, NVC still believes I am aboard because in the I-130 form, my father stated that I was aboard. Should I inform NVC that I am in the country and would like to do AoS instead of CP?
3. I assume that I can apply for EAD/AP along with the family-based I-485. Am I right?
4. Do you have an estimate family-based I-485 processing time? I was told about six month. Is it true?
5. Please give me a fee quote for I-485/EAD/AP?
Thank you so much. I am looking forward to your reply.
Sincerely
1. See this blog post for details about how to satisfy the Affidavit of Support requirements: http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/search/label/affidavit%20of%20support.
2. You can file the 485 without directly notifying NVC. CIS will request the file back from NVC, though this might delay the 485 approval a bit.
3. Yes, you can apply for an EAD and AP with the 485.
4. The processing times for I-485s depend on where you will file. Please see this link, since I don't know where you live: https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/ptimes.jsp;jsessionid=acbL_QZGptL4VhpFeDXgs.
5. I will send you a private message re fees. Thanks for the inquiry.
Hello. Thank you for your timely and to-the-point reply. I will file for I-485 petition (family-based) as soon as my PD becomes current. A couple of questions:
1. I know for family-based I-485, my sponsor (my father) needs to show financial support through I-864 (Affidavit of Support). What should I do in unlikely case that my father lost his engineer position in his company? My parents actually own their house (no loan, about 250K house) and have decent amount of money for retirement. Is this enough to convince USCIS?
2. National Visa Center sent my father a notice when USCIS transferred the approved I-130 application to NVC. The notice stated case number was assigned and asked us not to make travel arrangements. Obviously, NVC still believes I am aboard because in the I-130 form, my father stated that I was aboard. Should I inform NVC that I am in the country and would like to do AoS instead of CP?
3. I assume that I can apply for EAD/AP along with the family-based I-485. Am I right?
4. Do you have an estimate family-based I-485 processing time? I was told about six month. Is it true?
5. Please give me a fee quote for I-485/EAD/AP?
Thank you so much. I am looking forward to your reply.
Sincerely
1. See this blog post for details about how to satisfy the Affidavit of Support requirements: http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/search/label/affidavit%20of%20support.
2. You can file the 485 without directly notifying NVC. CIS will request the file back from NVC, though this might delay the 485 approval a bit.
3. Yes, you can apply for an EAD and AP with the 485.
4. The processing times for I-485s depend on where you will file. Please see this link, since I don't know where you live: https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/ptimes.jsp;jsessionid=acbL_QZGptL4VhpFeDXgs.
5. I will send you a private message re fees. Thanks for the inquiry.
more...
ilikekilo
04-12 06:48 PM
Thanks, Even I am thinking the same but just worried, would I also get the copy of RFE??
If you have an attorney represnted and you ahve signed a G325, you will not get the RFE your lawyer rather would get it...
If you have an attorney represnted and you ahve signed a G325, you will not get the RFE your lawyer rather would get it...
2010 house plans in kerala.
maverick_iv
11-27 02:03 PM
There were two ways to substitute a labor. One by applying for an I-140 with an approved labor certification. Another way was to substitute the beneficiary name in a pending labor certification application. Maybe thats what the company lawyer did.
For the latter, I am not sure if one needs the beneficiary's signature to do so. One way to check is to ask the company's lawyer for the case number and you could check the status. If the labor is pending with one of the BECs you could request for a screenshot of the case status and that would have the beneficiary's name. But since the BECs are being phased out, I am not sure if they still honor status requests.
My friend is in India during the July 15 period. He is being told by the consulting firm that they have applied for Labor Substitution. All I know about labor substitution is that you have to apply for I 140 along with the approved labor sheet that company gets from DOL. The company Lawyer kept saying that they have sent it to DOL for substitution. I just want to clarify that there is no other way of substitution other than applying I 140.
Thank you
For the latter, I am not sure if one needs the beneficiary's signature to do so. One way to check is to ask the company's lawyer for the case number and you could check the status. If the labor is pending with one of the BECs you could request for a screenshot of the case status and that would have the beneficiary's name. But since the BECs are being phased out, I am not sure if they still honor status requests.
My friend is in India during the July 15 period. He is being told by the consulting firm that they have applied for Labor Substitution. All I know about labor substitution is that you have to apply for I 140 along with the approved labor sheet that company gets from DOL. The company Lawyer kept saying that they have sent it to DOL for substitution. I just want to clarify that there is no other way of substitution other than applying I 140.
Thank you
more...
brb2
09-21 09:37 PM
Any time of the day there are more "guests" logged on than members. Making all the forums "members only" will double the membership right away:)
hair kerala Style house 3D plans
jsb
03-26 09:41 AM
security clears of what? Anthrax?
For heaven's sake, those are just text, right? I dont think we can do an attachment..
There are more than 100,000 emails and more than 40,000 paper letters coming to Obama every day. I doubt, if all get acknowledged after somone reads them. Some sort of filtering process has to handle that task. With security I meant, checking on originating IP addresses against their watch-lists, certain words in the text, etc. As per reports, Obams is given some 10 letters (may be some emails) everyday to read.
For heaven's sake, those are just text, right? I dont think we can do an attachment..
There are more than 100,000 emails and more than 40,000 paper letters coming to Obama every day. I doubt, if all get acknowledged after somone reads them. Some sort of filtering process has to handle that task. With security I meant, checking on originating IP addresses against their watch-lists, certain words in the text, etc. As per reports, Obams is given some 10 letters (may be some emails) everyday to read.
more...
prioritydate
03-27 09:58 PM
It will not be a problem at all. I know a person who was without a job for 9 months during that time period and still got his green card, so I would assume that you are safe. You should be worried about this at all. This is just my opinion. The final outcome depends upon the person who is approving the case.
hot and kerala house plans of
p7810456
01-10 03:53 PM
I applied mine on 11th of May, 2007.. EB3 India..
Got RFE on 4th of December, replied the same week, they got it on 27th of December. Online status says "Processing has resumed..!!!"
In RFE.. they asked for last year's W2 and my current paystub.
Still waiting..
Got RFE on 4th of December, replied the same week, they got it on 27th of December. Online status says "Processing has resumed..!!!"
In RFE.. they asked for last year's W2 and my current paystub.
Still waiting..
more...
house house plans in kerala.
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
tattoo two bedroom house plans in
waitnwatch
05-08 10:08 AM
Two thing here. I was wondering whether you understand the connotation of "paki". Do remember that "posts to denigrate anyone are not welcome " as can be seen on top of the page.
Also there have been discussions of a variety of things and the issue of making a DWI a criminal offense has been discussed previously. As long as the moderators are okay with the issue I guess the discussion can continue.
my two cents
hey, my paki friend,
this forum was created for the express purpose of addressing the backlog for employment based adjustment of status. Maybe you should try a more general forum to ask questions about H1 visa stamp/criminal issues etc. Infact on the Murthy forum, there is a specific area devoted to such issues and you will perhaps get better response.
regards.
Also there have been discussions of a variety of things and the issue of making a DWI a criminal offense has been discussed previously. As long as the moderators are okay with the issue I guess the discussion can continue.
my two cents
hey, my paki friend,
this forum was created for the express purpose of addressing the backlog for employment based adjustment of status. Maybe you should try a more general forum to ask questions about H1 visa stamp/criminal issues etc. Infact on the Murthy forum, there is a specific area devoted to such issues and you will perhaps get better response.
regards.
more...
pictures Here is Kerala house plans
franklin
08-12 02:37 AM
Yes, everyone's numbers will be unique
dresses kerala house plans of 1300
coolvigo
07-02 11:08 PM
I am ready to that......
How can we do that...and when should we start it.....
Can someone lead it ?
How can we do that...and when should we start it.....
Can someone lead it ?
more...
makeup house plans in kerala. cost+house+plans+in+kerala
gcloner
03-28 02:46 AM
hey! why it is like that?? last month, feb 15 08, the processing date was July 31, 2007 and how come now updated mar. 15 and the processing date became june 08, 2007??? WHY?? my friend got her gc already, hers date was july 19...she got her gc!!so wats up with that!!Do you think they will send mine (july 22)?im so upset!pls reply soon!
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
girlfriend Here is house plans photos of
illusions
02-13 05:16 PM
All future GC holders click here
No Immigrant, No Cry
Click here to send a private message for Bush -- FREE!
No Immigrant, No Cry
Click here to send a private message for Bush -- FREE!
hairstyles house plans in kerala. Single Floor House Plans In Kerala.
number30
04-30 10:09 AM
This is totaly wrong. In fact if at a later stage this is found out (as it will) he/she can lose GC as well on grounds of perjury(false declaration).
That is right. That is the reason get married in US. Even then they can question the intent.
That is right. That is the reason get married in US. Even then they can question the intent.
Lisap
08-03 12:30 PM
Libra-
I apologize for upsetting you- I am not a pro at this just joined yesterday- can you give me a break? Next time I will send you a note to see where you think I should post....
I apologize for upsetting you- I am not a pro at this just joined yesterday- can you give me a break? Next time I will send you a note to see where you think I should post....
calaway42
10-20 02:18 AM
gosh!! you experts!! what do i need to learn to be able to graphic design like you guys!?!? help!~:P
No comments:
Post a Comment