chanduy9
07-03 12:54 PM
I think any flower is good, if we run out of the same..just an idea.
wallpaper gold rush vbs 2011. 2011 gold rush vbs; 2011 gold rush vbs
Macaca
07-08 09:14 PM
140K GCs are available on Oct 1. But, dates are not current. Based on this, there appears to be a law that prevents USCIS from recieving ALL AOSs. I am guessing that this law specifies a cap on AOSs that USCIS can recieve from lawyers. (This is why I am keen on knowing conditions for setting dates in VB)
The following argues that it is hard for this cap to reach exactly on the end of every month.
no it will not be voilation of the law at all. consider this scenario thats been going on for the last 30+ years. For example July 2006 visa bulletin for EB2 india was jan 2003 and the August 2006 visa bulletin for EB2 india was unavailable. EB2 india visa numbers might have already been used up when the August 2006 visa bulletin was released but they still accepted the AOS petitions filed until the end of July 2006, they did not issue an updated visa bulletin or a revised visa bulletin saying eb2 india numbers are used up and they will not accept eb2 india aos applications, they continued accpeting AOS applications until the end of july 2006.
It is impossible to believe that this cap was not violated in June when it is possible that USCIS got 200K-600K AOSs.
The following argues that it is hard for this cap to reach exactly on the end of every month.
no it will not be voilation of the law at all. consider this scenario thats been going on for the last 30+ years. For example July 2006 visa bulletin for EB2 india was jan 2003 and the August 2006 visa bulletin for EB2 india was unavailable. EB2 india visa numbers might have already been used up when the August 2006 visa bulletin was released but they still accepted the AOS petitions filed until the end of July 2006, they did not issue an updated visa bulletin or a revised visa bulletin saying eb2 india numbers are used up and they will not accept eb2 india aos applications, they continued accpeting AOS applications until the end of july 2006.
It is impossible to believe that this cap was not violated in June when it is possible that USCIS got 200K-600K AOSs.
arnet
06-28 03:20 PM
thanks waldenpond.
2011 pictures VBS 2011 Gold Rush
godspeed
07-21 05:47 PM
Received by USCIS on 06/04/08
Approved on 7/14/2008
Card received on 7/18/2008
Got 2 yr renewal.
Btw - why are lot of members mentioning FP related information under EAD? I did my FP last Oct. Should I be expecting second FP as a result of EAD renewal application. I am missing some thing basic here. Any pointers?
FP is mainly for E-filing folks, paper filers need not take FP.
Approved on 7/14/2008
Card received on 7/18/2008
Got 2 yr renewal.
Btw - why are lot of members mentioning FP related information under EAD? I did my FP last Oct. Should I be expecting second FP as a result of EAD renewal application. I am missing some thing basic here. Any pointers?
FP is mainly for E-filing folks, paper filers need not take FP.
more...
buddyinsd
08-25 04:38 PM
Not sure if its a BREAK or no Visa numbers...
There were a couple of approvals today from TSC by looking at the other site.But slowed down a lot. Maybe USCIS is taking a break this last week and preparing for the next month:)
There were a couple of approvals today from TSC by looking at the other site.But slowed down a lot. Maybe USCIS is taking a break this last week and preparing for the next month:)
anilsal
08-13 11:22 PM
On aug 9 th, USCIS nebraska center issued a total of 4063 receipt nos for 485, EAD, and APs.
see the link http://.com/discuss/485eb/20866725/
From this, if we assume ~4000/day, it ll take 20 working days to clear july 2nd filers (~80,000). My guess is by 31st Aug.
We need something similar for the Sept 18th DC rally. Can you guess? :)
see the link http://.com/discuss/485eb/20866725/
From this, if we assume ~4000/day, it ll take 20 working days to clear july 2nd filers (~80,000). My guess is by 31st Aug.
We need something similar for the Sept 18th DC rally. Can you guess? :)
more...
ArunAntonio
07-09 06:08 PM
Excellent job!
But should we remove the contact number of Vikas Chowdhry from the article -- ??
Done! Although we might get protests from people claiming this is more Munna Bhai than Gandhigiri!
But should we remove the contact number of Vikas Chowdhry from the article -- ??
Done! Although we might get protests from people claiming this is more Munna Bhai than Gandhigiri!
2010 images gold rush vbs. VBS 2011
bobzibub
05-23 07:06 PM
Dear Senator ____;
Subject: Treating the currently backlogged legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants and family-based applicants in the Immigration Reform bill S. 1348.
I am a member of Immigration Voice (www.immigrationvoice.org). Immigration Voice represents the interest of 500,000 legal skilled immigrants in the United States on the path to green cards who have been stuck in enormous backlogs and delays in immigration process.
The career growth, job mobility and quality of life of a half a million legal skilled immigrants is subverted by the bill in its current form.
Specifically, the restrictions on employment mobility of current applicants affected by this bill, limit improvements in all wage rates. This is because when the market for highly skilled staff improves (as it is doing today), we have significant bureaucratic barriers placed that prevent us from changing jobs. This creates a mis-allocation of scarce talent and limits the growth of the high tech industry as a whole.
The permanent residency process currently takes a great many years, but technologies change fast. Staying in the same job can make a tech career stagnant. Few Americans in the technology field are willing to stay in the same position within their current company for that many years. So, Again, this limits growth in the technology industry because scarce skills are being miss-allocated.
It is not just about changing jobs: I also get requests from friends that want me to improve their website or even join a start-up. They are dumbfounded when I tell them I may not because it is illegal for me to do so. Nor may I volunteer my time. Nor may I start my own company because I may not work for myself. The economic cost of a half-million highly skilled people not being able to start a business must be staggering.
Personally, since moving to the "land of the free", I find it ironic that I lost my economic freedom. It is also heartbreaking to see the rug pulled out from beneath us when we've been such law-abiding and dedicated participants in the current system all these years. In terms of years, in terms of opportunity lost, and in terms of money wasted on lawyers, we humbly request an equitable solution for all skilled, law-abiding immigrants.
Here are some specific reasons why the current CIR bill fails us, and fails the US economy. Also suggestions on improvements that can be made:
1. Section 501(b) reduces the number of green cards to legal skilled immigrants from the current 140,000/year to 90,000/year and diverts the major portion of those green cards to future low-skills guest workers under the Y visa program. Instead of increasing that number to reduce the backlogs this section take a step backwards and would exacerbate the backlogs. On the other hand, 503(f)(2) of this act would allocate an estimated 11 million green cards over a time frame of 5 years – 2.2 million a year – to undocumented immigrants. Immigration Voice requests congress to treat legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants and increase the number of green cards to at least 250,000 for 5 years for currently backlogged applicants defined under Sec. 502(d)(2) in order to reduce to current backlog before the untested points based merit system is functional.
2. Immigration Voice requests congress to waive per-country ceilings on backlogged petitions to be processed under Sec. 502(d)(2) in order to make the backlog reduction more efficient. The bill provides a very similar waiver from per-country ceilings to family based pending petitions in section 508(b).
3. Immigration Voice requests congress to allow legal skilled immigrants to file for adjustment of status for those applicants who have been certified by DOL to be doing jobs no US citizen is willing, qualified or able to do. This would be at parity with provisions for undocumented immigrants who would qualify for instant work permit (probationary card) that allows them to work without employer sponsor and without department of labor’s certification simply by registering.
We at Immigration Voice strongly opposes the bill S 1348 in its current form and requests congress to amend this bill and treat the legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants, future guest-workers and pending family-based applicants.
Sincerely,
<your name>
Subject: Treating the currently backlogged legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants and family-based applicants in the Immigration Reform bill S. 1348.
I am a member of Immigration Voice (www.immigrationvoice.org). Immigration Voice represents the interest of 500,000 legal skilled immigrants in the United States on the path to green cards who have been stuck in enormous backlogs and delays in immigration process.
The career growth, job mobility and quality of life of a half a million legal skilled immigrants is subverted by the bill in its current form.
Specifically, the restrictions on employment mobility of current applicants affected by this bill, limit improvements in all wage rates. This is because when the market for highly skilled staff improves (as it is doing today), we have significant bureaucratic barriers placed that prevent us from changing jobs. This creates a mis-allocation of scarce talent and limits the growth of the high tech industry as a whole.
The permanent residency process currently takes a great many years, but technologies change fast. Staying in the same job can make a tech career stagnant. Few Americans in the technology field are willing to stay in the same position within their current company for that many years. So, Again, this limits growth in the technology industry because scarce skills are being miss-allocated.
It is not just about changing jobs: I also get requests from friends that want me to improve their website or even join a start-up. They are dumbfounded when I tell them I may not because it is illegal for me to do so. Nor may I volunteer my time. Nor may I start my own company because I may not work for myself. The economic cost of a half-million highly skilled people not being able to start a business must be staggering.
Personally, since moving to the "land of the free", I find it ironic that I lost my economic freedom. It is also heartbreaking to see the rug pulled out from beneath us when we've been such law-abiding and dedicated participants in the current system all these years. In terms of years, in terms of opportunity lost, and in terms of money wasted on lawyers, we humbly request an equitable solution for all skilled, law-abiding immigrants.
Here are some specific reasons why the current CIR bill fails us, and fails the US economy. Also suggestions on improvements that can be made:
1. Section 501(b) reduces the number of green cards to legal skilled immigrants from the current 140,000/year to 90,000/year and diverts the major portion of those green cards to future low-skills guest workers under the Y visa program. Instead of increasing that number to reduce the backlogs this section take a step backwards and would exacerbate the backlogs. On the other hand, 503(f)(2) of this act would allocate an estimated 11 million green cards over a time frame of 5 years – 2.2 million a year – to undocumented immigrants. Immigration Voice requests congress to treat legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants and increase the number of green cards to at least 250,000 for 5 years for currently backlogged applicants defined under Sec. 502(d)(2) in order to reduce to current backlog before the untested points based merit system is functional.
2. Immigration Voice requests congress to waive per-country ceilings on backlogged petitions to be processed under Sec. 502(d)(2) in order to make the backlog reduction more efficient. The bill provides a very similar waiver from per-country ceilings to family based pending petitions in section 508(b).
3. Immigration Voice requests congress to allow legal skilled immigrants to file for adjustment of status for those applicants who have been certified by DOL to be doing jobs no US citizen is willing, qualified or able to do. This would be at parity with provisions for undocumented immigrants who would qualify for instant work permit (probationary card) that allows them to work without employer sponsor and without department of labor’s certification simply by registering.
We at Immigration Voice strongly opposes the bill S 1348 in its current form and requests congress to amend this bill and treat the legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants, future guest-workers and pending family-based applicants.
Sincerely,
<your name>
more...
desi3933
06-29 08:51 AM
The link in my earlier post is a job advertisement which clearly states that EAD folks need not apply. There are 1000s of folks out there who are eligible for that position, but for the EAD restriction.
My question is -
what are these "1000s of folks" doing? Are they waiting for someone else to work for their cause?
If they believe they were wronged, they need to take action. Without any action, nothing is going to happen.
And, yes, these is discrimination on the both side of the lines. Have you looked at the hiring practices of leading desi outsourcing/consulting companies in the US?
__________________
Not a legal advice.
My question is -
what are these "1000s of folks" doing? Are they waiting for someone else to work for their cause?
If they believe they were wronged, they need to take action. Without any action, nothing is going to happen.
And, yes, these is discrimination on the both side of the lines. Have you looked at the hiring practices of leading desi outsourcing/consulting companies in the US?
__________________
Not a legal advice.
hair contact aig gold rush vbs.
qplearn
12-12 07:42 AM
I have mentioned IV to a some Indians. They have no interest. Some of them are not bothered about retrogression. They exepect the GC to fall in their lap while they are sipping tea and eating samosa.
Also, it is hard to trust a mainly Indian set up. The Indian contracting companies have set a very shameless level. I told my friends that IV appears different but it is hard to change your opinion when you see something else 10 times a day.
I apolozie to the sensitive Indians if I this is breaking news. But this is the general feeling and a reason for hate in the blogs: where there is smoke there is fire. It is embarassing.
I agree completely. Sometimes you pay the price for unethical and arrogant natives from your motherland. I know of someone who thinks he is smarter than people of any other nationality.
But I like your nickname. I wear that as a badge of honor. :)
Also, it is hard to trust a mainly Indian set up. The Indian contracting companies have set a very shameless level. I told my friends that IV appears different but it is hard to change your opinion when you see something else 10 times a day.
I apolozie to the sensitive Indians if I this is breaking news. But this is the general feeling and a reason for hate in the blogs: where there is smoke there is fire. It is embarassing.
I agree completely. Sometimes you pay the price for unethical and arrogant natives from your motherland. I know of someone who thinks he is smarter than people of any other nationality.
But I like your nickname. I wear that as a badge of honor. :)
more...
Sachin_Stock
09-23 04:43 PM
If someone ports from eb3 to eb2 they should get the priority date of the day they were eligible to file an eb2 and not be able to carry the date from eb3.
Porting makes sense in a family based visa where your petitioner can file for an application while he is still a green card holder and then becomes a citizen which upgrades the beneficiary's category as well.
On an employment visa you file for an eb3 when you are eligible for an eb3 job, you file for an eb2 when you are eligible for an eb2 job. Why would you be able to jump ahead in the eb2 line when you were clearly did not have an eb2 job ? Just because you filed an application at some point of time in eb3 and waited a decade to get a better job doesn't mean someone else has to pay for your (pick one - laziness, ineptitude, lack of skill or lack of knowledge).
Most of IV Core is made of eb3 applicants and therefore there has never been any push from the core on this matter. And as someone said .. You ARE eating my lunch..
Thats YOUR perception, and its totally inaccurate. When xyz had his Eb-3 140 approved, by definition he was OK'd to be immigrant. Now that date belongs to him and if he has gained sufficient expertise/skill level for him to promote to Eb-2 I-140, the transfer of dates is obvious. On the contrary he deserves to be ahead in line because he had already filed Eb-3 way ahead in advance. Calling him an unskilled, inept, or lazy proves him otherwise.
Porting makes sense in a family based visa where your petitioner can file for an application while he is still a green card holder and then becomes a citizen which upgrades the beneficiary's category as well.
On an employment visa you file for an eb3 when you are eligible for an eb3 job, you file for an eb2 when you are eligible for an eb2 job. Why would you be able to jump ahead in the eb2 line when you were clearly did not have an eb2 job ? Just because you filed an application at some point of time in eb3 and waited a decade to get a better job doesn't mean someone else has to pay for your (pick one - laziness, ineptitude, lack of skill or lack of knowledge).
Most of IV Core is made of eb3 applicants and therefore there has never been any push from the core on this matter. And as someone said .. You ARE eating my lunch..
Thats YOUR perception, and its totally inaccurate. When xyz had his Eb-3 140 approved, by definition he was OK'd to be immigrant. Now that date belongs to him and if he has gained sufficient expertise/skill level for him to promote to Eb-2 I-140, the transfer of dates is obvious. On the contrary he deserves to be ahead in line because he had already filed Eb-3 way ahead in advance. Calling him an unskilled, inept, or lazy proves him otherwise.
hot dresses Gold Rush VBS 2011
gsc999
07-11 12:19 PM
I second this. It took me full 15 minutes to figure out that the rally was on 14th not 7th.
Please see the new thread below:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6365
Admin, can you please make the new thread ( new url above) as the new sticky for 07/14 San Jose rally?
Please see the new thread below:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6365
Admin, can you please make the new thread ( new url above) as the new sticky for 07/14 San Jose rally?
more...
house 2011 gold rush vbs decorating. gold rush vbs decorating ideas. hot
diptam
06-27 09:54 AM
Here you go - These are the wordings !
$$$$
1. Employee had agreed to pay $ 10,000 if Employee resigns within first year of receiving the green card (hereinafter �Commitment Period�). After payment of the salary for the working days till the commitment period subject to all applicable payroll taxes and deductions, completes the transaction and Employee agrees that he has no other claims against the company.
$$$$$
Also there are more sensitive clauses like >>>>
8. EMPLOYEE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THIS AGREEMENT CREATES A PERMANENT BAR AGAINST THE FILING OF ANY LAWSUIT OR THE ASSERTION OF ANY LEGAL CLAIM WHATSOEVER AGAINST ANY RELEASEE WITH RESPECT TO ANY ACTS, OMISSIONS, OBLIGATIONS, BREACHES, OR DAMAGES ARISING OR OCCURRING PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION HEREOF, WHETHER KNOWN OR UNKNOWN BY EMPLOYEE.
BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, EMPLOYEE STATES THAT HE:
a) HAS READ IT AND HAS HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO CONSIDER ITS TERMS;
b) UNDERSTANDS IT AND KNOWS THAT HE IS GIVING UP IMPORTANT RIGHTS;
c) AGREES WITH EVERYTHING IN IT;
d) HAS CONSULTED WITH AN ATTORNEY BEFORE SIGNING IT; AND
3
e) HAS SIGNED IT KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY.
FOR A PERIOD OF SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT BY EMPLOYEE, EMPLOYEE MAY REVOKE THIS AGREEMENT; AND THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE OR ENFORCEABLE UNTIL THE REVOCATION PERIOD HAS EXPIRED.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed and entered into this Agreement.
I meant "whole sentence from the employment agreement". All depends on the wordings. If your agreement is linked to I-485 approval date then there is a way out. Every contract must have well defined terms. Since date for I-485 approval is not known, such contracts are difficult to stand in court of law. However, if it says "the employee must work for 2 years or 6-months after I-485 approval date (whichever is earlier) otherwise he/she will pay all GC related expenses" then the contract is more likely to be enforceable.
All depends on the wordings of the contract.
Please consult a good lawyer BEFORE signing any contract.
Not a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Green Card holder since May 2002
desi3933 at gmail.com
$$$$
1. Employee had agreed to pay $ 10,000 if Employee resigns within first year of receiving the green card (hereinafter �Commitment Period�). After payment of the salary for the working days till the commitment period subject to all applicable payroll taxes and deductions, completes the transaction and Employee agrees that he has no other claims against the company.
$$$$$
Also there are more sensitive clauses like >>>>
8. EMPLOYEE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THIS AGREEMENT CREATES A PERMANENT BAR AGAINST THE FILING OF ANY LAWSUIT OR THE ASSERTION OF ANY LEGAL CLAIM WHATSOEVER AGAINST ANY RELEASEE WITH RESPECT TO ANY ACTS, OMISSIONS, OBLIGATIONS, BREACHES, OR DAMAGES ARISING OR OCCURRING PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION HEREOF, WHETHER KNOWN OR UNKNOWN BY EMPLOYEE.
BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, EMPLOYEE STATES THAT HE:
a) HAS READ IT AND HAS HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO CONSIDER ITS TERMS;
b) UNDERSTANDS IT AND KNOWS THAT HE IS GIVING UP IMPORTANT RIGHTS;
c) AGREES WITH EVERYTHING IN IT;
d) HAS CONSULTED WITH AN ATTORNEY BEFORE SIGNING IT; AND
3
e) HAS SIGNED IT KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY.
FOR A PERIOD OF SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT BY EMPLOYEE, EMPLOYEE MAY REVOKE THIS AGREEMENT; AND THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE OR ENFORCEABLE UNTIL THE REVOCATION PERIOD HAS EXPIRED.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed and entered into this Agreement.
I meant "whole sentence from the employment agreement". All depends on the wordings. If your agreement is linked to I-485 approval date then there is a way out. Every contract must have well defined terms. Since date for I-485 approval is not known, such contracts are difficult to stand in court of law. However, if it says "the employee must work for 2 years or 6-months after I-485 approval date (whichever is earlier) otherwise he/she will pay all GC related expenses" then the contract is more likely to be enforceable.
All depends on the wordings of the contract.
Please consult a good lawyer BEFORE signing any contract.
Not a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Green Card holder since May 2002
desi3933 at gmail.com
tattoo dresses hot BAC Gold Rush VBS
titu1972
07-05 09:19 AM
Mine reached at July 02 10:25am at Lincon,NE. Received by J.Barrret. Ship date June 29.
more...
pictures At Gold Rush VBS
sankap
07-12 06:27 PM
...he may just approve even if you show the self employment will be in future (for future job requirement for GC), and he may agree for your "projected income".
Suppose you're on the 3rd month of a 3-month contract on self-employment in same/similar occupation (a "permanent" job). Now, can't you say your "projected" annual income on self-employment, esp. if the project is *likely* to be extended for an unknown period? Another scenario: In a month you're *expected* to start working on a three-month project (@$60/hr). Can't you calculate your annual income ("projected," of course)?
I think you have not read recent horror stories in H1B. They are just like that denying majority of H1B.
Statistically speaking, there is always a high probability of H1B getting denied than for GC. Also, H-1B fraud (and now L1, EB1-GC "frauds"), esp. by desi IT bodyshoppers, is more prevalent (as noted by BusinessWeek) than GC fraud. In any case, just because a large number of H-B petitions are getting rejected, on *genuine* grounds, you can't assume the same proportion of GCs getting rejected.
If the petitioner does not provide commitment/contract from end client for the entire duration of H1B period, H1B approval impossible. H1B is a temporary job; just think how much they will scrutinize for GC.
H1B is a temporary job from USCIS perspective. Most of the time the employer is hiring an H-1B to fill a FT, "permanent" position. Why would that employer (e.g., an R&D or oil company) give the commitment for, say, just 3 (initial) years of contract? Most of the time, the employer has *intent* to keep the H-1B on that same job after GC.
Those golden period are long gone. This is enforcement period as US unemployment rate is in double digit.
Current recession/depression doesn't mean the USCIS/DOL flout their rules/laws (e.g., AC21)--it just means they need to follow the rules more strictly and reject any potential fraudulent cases. This enforcement is only going to increase as it takes more time for the economy to bottom out. Law-abiding H-1B and GC petitioners need not fear that.
AC21 memo is a non-binding memo. Tomorrow they may release another memo or regulation that repeal the self employment in AC21 cases.
If AC21 memo is non-binding, which immigartion law is binding? We can go with only current rules/laws; the rest is speculation.
Suppose you're on the 3rd month of a 3-month contract on self-employment in same/similar occupation (a "permanent" job). Now, can't you say your "projected" annual income on self-employment, esp. if the project is *likely* to be extended for an unknown period? Another scenario: In a month you're *expected* to start working on a three-month project (@$60/hr). Can't you calculate your annual income ("projected," of course)?
I think you have not read recent horror stories in H1B. They are just like that denying majority of H1B.
Statistically speaking, there is always a high probability of H1B getting denied than for GC. Also, H-1B fraud (and now L1, EB1-GC "frauds"), esp. by desi IT bodyshoppers, is more prevalent (as noted by BusinessWeek) than GC fraud. In any case, just because a large number of H-B petitions are getting rejected, on *genuine* grounds, you can't assume the same proportion of GCs getting rejected.
If the petitioner does not provide commitment/contract from end client for the entire duration of H1B period, H1B approval impossible. H1B is a temporary job; just think how much they will scrutinize for GC.
H1B is a temporary job from USCIS perspective. Most of the time the employer is hiring an H-1B to fill a FT, "permanent" position. Why would that employer (e.g., an R&D or oil company) give the commitment for, say, just 3 (initial) years of contract? Most of the time, the employer has *intent* to keep the H-1B on that same job after GC.
Those golden period are long gone. This is enforcement period as US unemployment rate is in double digit.
Current recession/depression doesn't mean the USCIS/DOL flout their rules/laws (e.g., AC21)--it just means they need to follow the rules more strictly and reject any potential fraudulent cases. This enforcement is only going to increase as it takes more time for the economy to bottom out. Law-abiding H-1B and GC petitioners need not fear that.
AC21 memo is a non-binding memo. Tomorrow they may release another memo or regulation that repeal the self employment in AC21 cases.
If AC21 memo is non-binding, which immigartion law is binding? We can go with only current rules/laws; the rest is speculation.
dresses Amber gold rush vbs
land of dreams
02-10 08:24 PM
To the Gurus,
I have a couple of questions regarding my AC21 portability, please post your thoughts on this
1) My 140 is approved and 485 is pending more than 180 days and I am planning to change my job. If my old employer does not cancel the approved 140, do I need to inform USCIS about the change of job??
2) Can I change multiple jobs??
3) Has anyone done that??
Please comment on this.
I have a couple of questions regarding my AC21 portability, please post your thoughts on this
1) My 140 is approved and 485 is pending more than 180 days and I am planning to change my job. If my old employer does not cancel the approved 140, do I need to inform USCIS about the change of job??
2) Can I change multiple jobs??
3) Has anyone done that??
Please comment on this.
more...
makeup hot BAC Gold Rush VBS 2011
fetch_gc
10-16 10:01 AM
Hi gcspace,
I'm still waiting for I485/765/131 receipts from NSC, filed on July 16th@11.16 am, signed by F.HEINAUER.
Today is the 91st day and I do not know how many days we need 2 wait.
I'm still waiting for I485/765/131 receipts from NSC, filed on July 16th@11.16 am, signed by F.HEINAUER.
Today is the 91st day and I do not know how many days we need 2 wait.
girlfriend Answers VBS program during
rkg000
02-16 09:03 AM
Transaction ID: 1D878981AC092414Y
hairstyles Amazing Desert Journey VBS
nksfl
08-26 12:34 PM
We have been waiting for more than 100 days. We applied exactly 120 days before our current EAD was going to expire. When I called USCIS (after 90 days) , Customer Service told that that don�t have our finger prints in file. I never got any notice and my lawyer said they don�t need finger prints for paper filed application and they should use I485 finger prints. So I took the infopass appointment. IO was nice and he was willing to listen. He said the same thing (missing finger prints). I showed him the fingerprint receipts from last year and also showed the USCIS memo talking about interim EAD. He said no to interim EAD. But called Texas Service Center right then. Person on the other end offered to call back in 5 minutes and he did. IO came back and told us that there was some thing wrong at their end and they will port my finger print information from 485 to EAD application. But he said it would take 10 � 15 business days more. Our current EAD were expiring soon and I called congresswoman�s office next day. Got the approval email yesterday evening. Don�t know what worked. But what a huge relief.
EB-3-India (March 2003)
Labor Approved: Oct 2006
I-140 approved � Jan 2007
I-485 applied � June 2007
EAD (Renewal) applied � May first week 2008
Called USCIS and Opened SR � August first week
Infopass at local uscis office: Aug 20th
Called Congress Woman�s office: Aug 21 st
EAD Approval email: Aug 25
EB-3-India (March 2003)
Labor Approved: Oct 2006
I-140 approved � Jan 2007
I-485 applied � June 2007
EAD (Renewal) applied � May first week 2008
Called USCIS and Opened SR � August first week
Infopass at local uscis office: Aug 20th
Called Congress Woman�s office: Aug 21 st
EAD Approval email: Aug 25
girishvar
11-21 07:51 AM
I pray for you and your family. Please go and meet your US Senator from your state. They might be able to sponsor a private bill for your wife. Dont loose hope and fight. God will help you.
beppenyc
06-21 04:16 PM
No one thinks this is feasible??
Is the only hope. Reality is that we have to wait for November and hope that Democrats will gain power at the House. Is important to undestand that only the conservative repubblican are blocking and killing the bill. We have to hope for the Democrats to gain control.
Is the only hope. Reality is that we have to wait for November and hope that Democrats will gain power at the House. Is important to undestand that only the conservative repubblican are blocking and killing the bill. We have to hope for the Democrats to gain control.
No comments:
Post a Comment