mheggade
09-10 12:18 PM
Hello,
Yesterday evening me and my wife received our welcome email ...Obviously it was great news.
I wish Good Luck to all the members still waiting.
My GC info is below.
Center :NSC
PD: April 21 2006
ND:sep 07 2007
RD:July 02 2007
Changed job twice on EAD. Never used AC21.
never did SR/infopass.
FP total 3 times for my wife , only once for me.
USCIS Email
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Your Case Status: Card/ Document Production
Yesterday evening me and my wife received our welcome email ...Obviously it was great news.
I wish Good Luck to all the members still waiting.
My GC info is below.
Center :NSC
PD: April 21 2006
ND:sep 07 2007
RD:July 02 2007
Changed job twice on EAD. Never used AC21.
never did SR/infopass.
FP total 3 times for my wife , only once for me.
USCIS Email
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Your Case Status: Card/ Document Production
wallpaper selena gomez 2011 hd. selena
gcForV
07-09 09:43 PM
we are giving USCIS options on how to deal with the campaign.
If they really do forward the flowers they need to think about seperating notes from flowers.
If they really do forward the flowers they need to think about seperating notes from flowers.
lost_in_gc_land
01-31 04:27 AM
We had our interview on January 17th in chennai Consulate. Interview was smooth - which company.. how long you were working for the company and what do you do there.. these were the questions. We were told at the end that we will receive passports within a week.
So far We ( H1B extension -- 3rd time and my wife - H4( 2nd Time), have not received the passports. I already postponed our date of travel to Feb 5th. Looks like I have to postpone again.
Frustated..
Calling VFS daily to hear the same news.. Passports not been handed over VFS. The VISA is still under process.
Called Consulate Twice ... they say they are doing security checks..
for how long???
Vamsi
Hello SVKrishna, Vamsi...all stuck in PIMS,
Did you get a yellow paper for 221(g) saying that when administrative processing is completed on your case we will get back to you? This is what I received and I have been waiting for over 75 days!!! :mad:
So far We ( H1B extension -- 3rd time and my wife - H4( 2nd Time), have not received the passports. I already postponed our date of travel to Feb 5th. Looks like I have to postpone again.
Frustated..
Calling VFS daily to hear the same news.. Passports not been handed over VFS. The VISA is still under process.
Called Consulate Twice ... they say they are doing security checks..
for how long???
Vamsi
Hello SVKrishna, Vamsi...all stuck in PIMS,
Did you get a yellow paper for 221(g) saying that when administrative processing is completed on your case we will get back to you? This is what I received and I have been waiting for over 75 days!!! :mad:
2011 hot selena gomez 2011 hd
gc_on_demand
09-09 12:01 PM
Called up all the above
~~~
~~~
more...
brb2
09-12 09:28 AM
It is not that simple. The soundex algorithm will change the spelling of each name (F, M, L) and do multiple combinations during the name check process. So a Sita can be become Seeta or Satyendra may become Satinder and so on. So don't count your chickens as yet:)
well this is great news there were no hits for my husbands name and only 1 hit for my name! Hopefully we will be ok and not get stuck in name checks then! Thank you for your response!
well this is great news there were no hits for my husbands name and only 1 hit for my name! Hopefully we will be ok and not get stuck in name checks then! Thank you for your response!
lifestrikes
09-30 02:45 PM
@ras
Text from Lingo
Calls to mobile phones, premium and special service numbers are not included in the unlimited international destinations. US includes AK, HI, PR, USVI and calls to cellular phones.
It's better to find out what they consider as Premium and Special Service numbers.
Text from Lingo
Calls to mobile phones, premium and special service numbers are not included in the unlimited international destinations. US includes AK, HI, PR, USVI and calls to cellular phones.
It's better to find out what they consider as Premium and Special Service numbers.
more...
SunnySurya
08-07 02:46 PM
What is being done is simply replacing (or attaching) new I-140 to the exisitng 485. Thus RD of 485 remains intact.
I think IF we stress for FIFO principle then jumping lines , ships will be taken care of by themselves. let RD be used and PD recaPture request date on the letter be RD.
I think IF we stress for FIFO principle then jumping lines , ships will be taken care of by themselves. let RD be used and PD recaPture request date on the letter be RD.
2010 hot selena gomez 2011 hd.
ourgcapproved
08-17 02:21 PM
ok.. the letter is dated 4th august and did you get any information again that your case is assigned to a officer? if yes can you please tell how you contacted them? and after how many days?
more...
immigrationvoice1
04-17 03:33 PM
I have sent an email to the id listed on that site (osccrt@usdoj.gov)with emails from Capital One which says they are not in favor of EADs. Will update once I hear back.
Here is the response for my email sent earlier which I received today. Advices are welcome:
Dear Mr. xxxxx:
Thank you for your e-mail inquiry received by the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices ("OSC") on March 25, 2008. You inquired whether or not an employer engages in unlawful citizenship status discrimination if the employer rejects an applicant for employment because the applicant possesses an H-1B visa and a valid "EAD".
OSC enforces the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. � 1324b. The Act prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of citizenship status or national origin with respect to hiring, firing, and recruitment or referral for a fee, unfair documentary practices with respect to verification of employment eligibility, and retaliation. Citizenship status discrimination occurs when individuals are rejected for employment or fired because they are U.S. citizens or because of their immigration status or type of work authorization. The Act does not protect all groups of workers from citizenship status discrimination. U.S. citizens, most permanent residents and temporary residents, asylees, and refugees are protected from citizenship status discrimination. Other classifications of workers like H-1B visa holders are not protected from citizenship status discrimination.
It is not possible to determine whether you suffered unlawful citizenship status discrimination based on the information you provided in your e-mail. If you believe you have suffered citizenship status discrimination, you or your representative may file a charge of citizenship status discrimination in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee directly with OSC. OSC will review your complete charge and investigate to determine whether there is reason to believe you have suffered citizenship status discrimination in violation of 8 U.S.C. � 1324b. For more information on the charge filing process, please visit our website at - http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc. In addition, individuals may download the charge form from this website. Please note that charges of discrimination must be filed within 180 days from the date of the alleged discrimination. You may send the completed charge form to OSC via facsimile at (202) 616-5509, or by first-class mail to: Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices; 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW; NYAV Building, 9th Floor; Washington, D.C. 20530.
Thank you once again for your correspondence. We hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding immigration-related unfair employment practices, you may contact OSC at 1-800-255-8155 (toll-free).
Here is the response for my email sent earlier which I received today. Advices are welcome:
Dear Mr. xxxxx:
Thank you for your e-mail inquiry received by the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices ("OSC") on March 25, 2008. You inquired whether or not an employer engages in unlawful citizenship status discrimination if the employer rejects an applicant for employment because the applicant possesses an H-1B visa and a valid "EAD".
OSC enforces the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. � 1324b. The Act prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of citizenship status or national origin with respect to hiring, firing, and recruitment or referral for a fee, unfair documentary practices with respect to verification of employment eligibility, and retaliation. Citizenship status discrimination occurs when individuals are rejected for employment or fired because they are U.S. citizens or because of their immigration status or type of work authorization. The Act does not protect all groups of workers from citizenship status discrimination. U.S. citizens, most permanent residents and temporary residents, asylees, and refugees are protected from citizenship status discrimination. Other classifications of workers like H-1B visa holders are not protected from citizenship status discrimination.
It is not possible to determine whether you suffered unlawful citizenship status discrimination based on the information you provided in your e-mail. If you believe you have suffered citizenship status discrimination, you or your representative may file a charge of citizenship status discrimination in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee directly with OSC. OSC will review your complete charge and investigate to determine whether there is reason to believe you have suffered citizenship status discrimination in violation of 8 U.S.C. � 1324b. For more information on the charge filing process, please visit our website at - http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc. In addition, individuals may download the charge form from this website. Please note that charges of discrimination must be filed within 180 days from the date of the alleged discrimination. You may send the completed charge form to OSC via facsimile at (202) 616-5509, or by first-class mail to: Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices; 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW; NYAV Building, 9th Floor; Washington, D.C. 20530.
Thank you once again for your correspondence. We hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding immigration-related unfair employment practices, you may contact OSC at 1-800-255-8155 (toll-free).
hair selena gomez 2011 hd
gene77
08-20 01:53 PM
I'm at Oct 2004 (EB3-I), 35 years for me .... you don't say!
No seriously guys, 'spatial' brings up a good point; the laws are up for interpretation by the USCIS.
No seriously guys, 'spatial' brings up a good point; the laws are up for interpretation by the USCIS.
more...
guest_mister_08
08-17 03:17 PM
I have received Courtesy copy of I485 Approval notice, and law firm received the Original I485 Approval Notice.
Is there any use for Original I485 Approval Notice or just Green Card is Enough?
Is there any use for Original I485 Approval Notice or just Green Card is Enough?
hot wallpaper selena gomez 2011
bfadlia
03-25 04:14 PM
All these requirements are Position Specific. Before publishing externally, most companies (HR) decides the policy first for an example to which kind of person they will hire for this position like " We will not consider H1 for this position" seeing the "Critical and essential need of "blah " blah"..." And they then follow it. So it may happen that one person gets an answer " We do not consider EAD holder for this position.." and next month you may meet somebody (EAD Holder) working for that company on EAD but for different position as company made apolicy to hire EAD holder for that particular kind of position.
makes sense, parallel to saying x job only available for phd holders, y job for masters
but that's legal because a job can benefit from the skills of a phd holder, while in our case of EAD vs GC or Citizenship the employer gets no benefit, it's just his arbitrary will, that what made it illeagal
makes sense, parallel to saying x job only available for phd holders, y job for masters
but that's legal because a job can benefit from the skills of a phd holder, while in our case of EAD vs GC or Citizenship the employer gets no benefit, it's just his arbitrary will, that what made it illeagal
more...
house hair selena gomez 2011
jsb
10-07 10:16 PM
Is anybody questioning as to what these weekly updates (on USCIS claims that receipts cleared for dates in August) mean when we are still waiting receipts for July 2 filings ?
tattoo selena gomez 2011 wallpaper.
aadimanav
01-03 12:56 AM
Part 2 continued....
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
more...
pictures selena gomez 2011 hd
snathan
04-27 12:04 AM
We heard so many stories about violation many Indian bodyshoppers like bench without pay,Low pay ,fake resumes and many more. But when any bill comes to control them we are opposing. Because we fear that we may be one of the persons working in those companies and may be impacted by that.
Certainly the bill is not a pro immigrant and anti immigrant bill. But some kind of restriction is needed to clean out H1b. I accept as a pro immigrant we have to oppose any anti immigrant bill. So I am sure IV will try to block the bill as they did the restriction in TARP.
I am not going to get any benefit if they shut the door behind me. I need just one job that I can get any time and whatever compettion and there is no need to shut thousands of people. So my views are not based on any personal ambition.
I am seeing some positives in the bill. Wages will increase for the H1bs also. Only genuine companies can do the business. Best and bright people will not be impacted by this. Also it can open opportunity to increase H1b Cap and Green card Cap. So there is a good possiblity to reduce or eliminate retrogession.
Basically there are two options for IV and other pro immigrants if the bill is considered serously. One is just oppose the bill and try to block completely. Or other option is to negotiate to include our agenda to recapture/increase GC and also to modify the portions of bill. Instead of failing with option 1 getting success in option 2 is better.
I think this bill will not be passed if it is against WTO trade regulations.
So you never know all these violation when you were in H1. What were you doing then. Why didnt you oppose then. If you know the violation did you call the USCIS and DOL and complain...No. Because you would end up in trouble. Now you got your GC and no matter if other guys are end up in trouble, in fact it would be helpful for you... Are you ready to review your status thorught all your H1, all your PREM processing to prove there is no violation...? Eveyone know how things are working. So if you got your GC just keep quite and move on. When you can not be helpful to others...why you are just creating pain.
If you are worrying about the wages..let them free the employees from employer. Thats the best way to clean up the system. If you are really pro-immigrant your thoughts should align in that direction. But most of us see you as Ron Diamond in the making. Its very unfortunate. One study shows that only immigrants opposing immigration more than natvie people.
Certainly the bill is not a pro immigrant and anti immigrant bill. But some kind of restriction is needed to clean out H1b. I accept as a pro immigrant we have to oppose any anti immigrant bill. So I am sure IV will try to block the bill as they did the restriction in TARP.
I am not going to get any benefit if they shut the door behind me. I need just one job that I can get any time and whatever compettion and there is no need to shut thousands of people. So my views are not based on any personal ambition.
I am seeing some positives in the bill. Wages will increase for the H1bs also. Only genuine companies can do the business. Best and bright people will not be impacted by this. Also it can open opportunity to increase H1b Cap and Green card Cap. So there is a good possiblity to reduce or eliminate retrogession.
Basically there are two options for IV and other pro immigrants if the bill is considered serously. One is just oppose the bill and try to block completely. Or other option is to negotiate to include our agenda to recapture/increase GC and also to modify the portions of bill. Instead of failing with option 1 getting success in option 2 is better.
I think this bill will not be passed if it is against WTO trade regulations.
So you never know all these violation when you were in H1. What were you doing then. Why didnt you oppose then. If you know the violation did you call the USCIS and DOL and complain...No. Because you would end up in trouble. Now you got your GC and no matter if other guys are end up in trouble, in fact it would be helpful for you... Are you ready to review your status thorught all your H1, all your PREM processing to prove there is no violation...? Eveyone know how things are working. So if you got your GC just keep quite and move on. When you can not be helpful to others...why you are just creating pain.
If you are worrying about the wages..let them free the employees from employer. Thats the best way to clean up the system. If you are really pro-immigrant your thoughts should align in that direction. But most of us see you as Ron Diamond in the making. Its very unfortunate. One study shows that only immigrants opposing immigration more than natvie people.
dresses girlfriend selena gomez 2011
EkAurAaya
10-17 03:36 PM
My 140 and 485s (with my wife as derivative )are from Nebraska and have a set of A#s,
again My wife's 140 and 485s (with me as derivative ) are from Texas and have a different set of A#s..
how to combine them and make uscis inform abt it???
Anybody any thoughts !!!
gc_chahiye is correct - this is precisely why my lawyer advised me not to go with 2nd set of 485 + if one gets rejected the other one automatically gets rejected (when both are combined)
We decided to go for 485 that had older PD
I know someone who applied for 2nd set and then withdrew the 2nd application as soon as he got Receipts (his application was in Neb and wife's was in Texas << this could lead to major delays as the files are now physically located in different centers)
With all the confusion and movement of applications to different centers... things can only get complicated in my opinion. One can only hope for the best
again My wife's 140 and 485s (with me as derivative ) are from Texas and have a different set of A#s..
how to combine them and make uscis inform abt it???
Anybody any thoughts !!!
gc_chahiye is correct - this is precisely why my lawyer advised me not to go with 2nd set of 485 + if one gets rejected the other one automatically gets rejected (when both are combined)
We decided to go for 485 that had older PD
I know someone who applied for 2nd set and then withdrew the 2nd application as soon as he got Receipts (his application was in Neb and wife's was in Texas << this could lead to major delays as the files are now physically located in different centers)
With all the confusion and movement of applications to different centers... things can only get complicated in my opinion. One can only hope for the best
more...
makeup tattoo selena gomez 2011 hd
brshankar
08-07 11:56 AM
Yes, my GC is in Peril and thats exactly what I am trying to do...
Dude,
Looks like Rolling_Flood has not yet voted on this poll. I thought he will be the first Yes for this poll.
Are you guys planning to file separate lawsuits?
Dude,
Looks like Rolling_Flood has not yet voted on this poll. I thought he will be the first Yes for this poll.
Are you guys planning to file separate lawsuits?
girlfriend selena gomez 2011 hd.
arulz
11-23 01:30 PM
Foreclosure and bankruptcy will not affect your job search... especially in this market.
If you encounter a situation in future and HR questions you about bad credit or bankruptcy be honest and explain what happened and companies will understand. This is a tough economy and even millionaires are foreclosing because its the smart thing to do in a capitalist economy.
Similarly applying for bankruptcy is not bad, it is there for a reason. But remember, understand the bankruptcy laws; for example if you owe 100,000 and apply for bankruptcy the chances are the court will make you pay for it. If you owe 1mill then the court knows that you cannot pay and will dissolve it. Same applies for foreclosure, banks will help you if you cannot afford to make the payment. If you can and they think you can, you are screwed. sorry!
If you encounter a situation in future and HR questions you about bad credit or bankruptcy be honest and explain what happened and companies will understand. This is a tough economy and even millionaires are foreclosing because its the smart thing to do in a capitalist economy.
Similarly applying for bankruptcy is not bad, it is there for a reason. But remember, understand the bankruptcy laws; for example if you owe 100,000 and apply for bankruptcy the chances are the court will make you pay for it. If you owe 1mill then the court knows that you cannot pay and will dissolve it. Same applies for foreclosure, banks will help you if you cannot afford to make the payment. If you can and they think you can, you are screwed. sorry!
hairstyles selena gomez 2011 hd. selena
abhijitp
07-09 07:15 PM
First: They will ignore you (that's what preciously happened for so many years, no ear eager to listen about the problems of legal immigrants)
Second: They will laugh at you (that's what is taking place. Instead of accepting the mistake and offering an apology, USCIS has only issued a statement about forwarding flowers to Army Medical Center)
Third: They fight with you (I guess that's what they are gonna do in the court)
Fouth: Finally you win.
So stay tuned guys ...... victory is not far away!!
BTW whether or (as someone said, more likely) not we are strictly following Gandhian principles, I am sure he would have been unhappy for people who opt for inaction as opposed to any peaceful means of protest.
Second: They will laugh at you (that's what is taking place. Instead of accepting the mistake and offering an apology, USCIS has only issued a statement about forwarding flowers to Army Medical Center)
Third: They fight with you (I guess that's what they are gonna do in the court)
Fouth: Finally you win.
So stay tuned guys ...... victory is not far away!!
BTW whether or (as someone said, more likely) not we are strictly following Gandhian principles, I am sure he would have been unhappy for people who opt for inaction as opposed to any peaceful means of protest.
suriajay12
03-13 07:41 AM
Could not find the link..Which page do I need to go on to vote.. I have searched about 500 pages.. Pls. advise..
RV
www.change.gov. You will see "Agenda" as one tab. In that you can post it under immigration. There is a button called "Send or submit your ideas".
The letter to send is in page 10 in this forum.
RV
www.change.gov. You will see "Agenda" as one tab. In that you can post it under immigration. There is a button called "Send or submit your ideas".
The letter to send is in page 10 in this forum.
WaitingForMyGC
01-11 08:34 AM
I am on a h1b currently. I changed empoyers in the US but the old stamp is still valid till semptember 2008. I has taken a visa date for jan30 in mumbai consulate and was going to fly back on feb9. Now planning to cancel the visa stamping because of the PIMS delays. I hope i am still valid to fly as i have a valid visa stamp and a new petition from current employer too which i can show at port of entry. Do let me know your views on the same and if there are any probable issues....
You should be fine. You don't need to go for stamping if you are travelling before ur visa expiry.
You should be fine. You don't need to go for stamping if you are travelling before ur visa expiry.
No comments:
Post a Comment