meda
05-13 08:40 AM
Just got response for my SR saying there is a RFE on my case and the letter is sent to my attorney. No update or no SLUD, LUD online. No RFE on spouse case but still waiting.
wallpaper I love you canfor every love
skothuru
06-21 12:03 PM
Congratulations!!!!!
Would you plz confirm us on the Birth Certificate?
Me & my husband got our Birth Certificates in 2005 with all the correct birth details. Do you think we might still need affidavits for Late Registration of Birth?Please throw some light on this as there's lot of confusion going on this.
Would you plz confirm us on the Birth Certificate?
Me & my husband got our Birth Certificates in 2005 with all the correct birth details. Do you think we might still need affidavits for Late Registration of Birth?Please throw some light on this as there's lot of confusion going on this.
mallu
09-26 10:03 PM
Thanks. But GC still sucks because of the long process. Good Luck to everyone.
PD - 04/2002
EB3 - ROW
I-485 RD - 03/2007
I-485 AD - 09/2007
Congrats. So you are an old timer, with PD 2002. (Being from ROW) you luckily escaped the name check torture.
I am also a relatively old timer ( PD Nov. 2002 ). Unfortunately stuck in namecheck since Aug.2006. My fellow Indians say , i can just sit like this for another 2 - 3 years in name check :-(
PD - 04/2002
EB3 - ROW
I-485 RD - 03/2007
I-485 AD - 09/2007
Congrats. So you are an old timer, with PD 2002. (Being from ROW) you luckily escaped the name check torture.
I am also a relatively old timer ( PD Nov. 2002 ). Unfortunately stuck in namecheck since Aug.2006. My fellow Indians say , i can just sit like this for another 2 - 3 years in name check :-(
2011 always love the cute i love tag Tags+for+facebook+friends+i+love+you
gee_see
04-15 10:16 AM
I got my approval y'day from TSC. This marks the end of GC journey. Been with same employer since Aug 1999 ( 9 Long years...........).
more...
eilsoe
10-22 04:26 PM
Ah, where the gals are dressed up as whores (or something) right?
gc_chahiye
08-03 05:55 PM
With an I-140 approval a strict reading of the law does seem to imply to me also that an extension only if I-485 cannot be filed. However USCIS has been interpreting this to be I-485 cant be approved because of visa numbers. And that makes sense.
So once dates go U (like they have now), or you are no longer current, you can still get 3 year extensions. Thats what has happened to a couple of my friends.
So once dates go U (like they have now), or you are no longer current, you can still get 3 year extensions. Thats what has happened to a couple of my friends.
more...
abhay
01-03 11:13 AM
Yea, Dont let those european countries charge you for few hours of airport stay, They are taking advantage of people in the name of 9/11. I travelled via Middle east from DC, travel is shorter by 2 hours
2010 i love the love emoticons for comment Tags+for+facebook+i+love+you
slowwin
07-09 11:48 AM
Funny that this lawyer is Ok with transferring H-1b, but does not want to accept an EAD. .
It's obvious. This lawyer wants to make money for applying H1-b (transfer ~ $5000 typically). If you use EAD he gets zilch.:D:D:D:D:D:D
It's obvious. This lawyer wants to make money for applying H1-b (transfer ~ $5000 typically). If you use EAD he gets zilch.:D:D:D:D:D:D
more...
24fps
02-23 11:05 PM
hmmn, i am seeing a HUGE jump in H1b cancellations in this forum, maybe there should be a separate thread dedicated to the cancellations so we can deduce some pattern or trend.
hair May use our i language filter view Tags+for+facebook+i+love+you
GCisLottery
05-25 08:17 AM
It was not clear how this amendment affects, so I did some reading myself and found how it quietly does it. And adds a little incentive i.e. the total number may not exceed 650,000. In other words, alloting 200,000 for dependants(650,000 total - 450,000 primary)
I get a feeling that this might pass if it is presented on the floor smartly to kindle some number/cost sentiment.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act the language in Title V Sec. 501 under the heading ``
(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN'' is null and void and the following shall be applicable
in lien thereof.
``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), immigrant visas issued on or after
October 1, 2004, to spouses and children of employment-based immigrants shall not be counted against
the numerical limitation set forth in paragraph (1).
``(B) NUMERICAL LIMITATION.--The total number of visas issued under paragraph (1)(A) and
paragraph (2), excluding such visas issued to aliens pursuant to section 245B or section 245C of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, may not exceed 650,000 during any fiscal year.
-----------
INA 245B(Employment based) 245C(Family based) (http://www.uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-20/slb-7169?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act245)
245B:
(b) Upon the approval of an application for adjustment made under subsection (a), the Attorney General shall record the alien's lawful admission for permanent residence as of the date the order of the Attorney General approving the application for the adjustment of status is made, and the Secretary of State shall reduce by one the number of the preference visas authorized to be issued under sections 202 and 203 within the class to which the alien is chargeable for the fiscal year then current.
I get a feeling that this might pass if it is presented on the floor smartly to kindle some number/cost sentiment.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act the language in Title V Sec. 501 under the heading ``
(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN'' is null and void and the following shall be applicable
in lien thereof.
``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), immigrant visas issued on or after
October 1, 2004, to spouses and children of employment-based immigrants shall not be counted against
the numerical limitation set forth in paragraph (1).
``(B) NUMERICAL LIMITATION.--The total number of visas issued under paragraph (1)(A) and
paragraph (2), excluding such visas issued to aliens pursuant to section 245B or section 245C of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, may not exceed 650,000 during any fiscal year.
-----------
INA 245B(Employment based) 245C(Family based) (http://www.uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-20/slb-7169?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act245)
245B:
(b) Upon the approval of an application for adjustment made under subsection (a), the Attorney General shall record the alien's lawful admission for permanent residence as of the date the order of the Attorney General approving the application for the adjustment of status is made, and the Secretary of State shall reduce by one the number of the preference visas authorized to be issued under sections 202 and 203 within the class to which the alien is chargeable for the fiscal year then current.
more...
Circus123
03-14 08:39 PM
Hey check this prediction out.
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4541
I think it is like a orchard of mangoes miles long. The riped mangoes are plucked and the farmer moves on to the next tree. He has to walk up and down the whole stretch every month in the second week to determine what's ripe and what's not. He then comes back with his helpers with baskets . There might be some accidental drops of ripe mangoes which get lost for a while :) Just my analogy of EB immigration .
Correct me if I am wrong...
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4541
I think it is like a orchard of mangoes miles long. The riped mangoes are plucked and the farmer moves on to the next tree. He has to walk up and down the whole stretch every month in the second week to determine what's ripe and what's not. He then comes back with his helpers with baskets . There might be some accidental drops of ripe mangoes which get lost for a while :) Just my analogy of EB immigration .
Correct me if I am wrong...
hot -love-you-facebook-friends
OLDMONK
07-09 09:02 PM
So you are of the opinion that there is worse which can happen.
To me this latest I485 filing issue is about as low at it gets. Specially the way it was handled, and the stick approach afterwords with no regrets by any one. (amongst others FBI name checks, retrogression, Country Caps, etc. etc.)
Some Keywords to ponder on / References.
Rice, Condoleezza - A little Inconvenience for applicants
Journalists - Wrinkle in reporting numbers by USCIS
Lets respect ourselves a little better and take a stand, not be docile and humble specially when given the stick. The tougher the immigration gets, the better, provided its dealt fairly and unequivocally.
To me this latest I485 filing issue is about as low at it gets. Specially the way it was handled, and the stick approach afterwords with no regrets by any one. (amongst others FBI name checks, retrogression, Country Caps, etc. etc.)
Some Keywords to ponder on / References.
Rice, Condoleezza - A little Inconvenience for applicants
Journalists - Wrinkle in reporting numbers by USCIS
Lets respect ourselves a little better and take a stand, not be docile and humble specially when given the stick. The tougher the immigration gets, the better, provided its dealt fairly and unequivocally.
more...
house facebook tags i love you
gg_ny
07-17 06:00 PM
http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3269.html
As I feared, the questions about lost, returned, missed, mislaid and vanished visa numbers went unanswered in this bulletin. There is a vague reference to the returned visas while in truth 1) visa numbers have been returned to DOS
2) there is no real proof that even majority of claimed visas had been used by CIS. It is left to Ombudsman in 2008 to cry over the numbers that would be lost by sept 2007. Basically, the relief from fiasco benefits those who are filing 485 and CIS (in terms of hiked EAD/AP fees for next 4-5 years for each 485 applicant).
I believe that in a master move CIS (and maybe DOS) has buried the skeletons for good now. This has become almost like a game of chess. With each bulletin, CIS is becoming stronger and nastier like Voldemart!
As I feared, the questions about lost, returned, missed, mislaid and vanished visa numbers went unanswered in this bulletin. There is a vague reference to the returned visas while in truth 1) visa numbers have been returned to DOS
2) there is no real proof that even majority of claimed visas had been used by CIS. It is left to Ombudsman in 2008 to cry over the numbers that would be lost by sept 2007. Basically, the relief from fiasco benefits those who are filing 485 and CIS (in terms of hiked EAD/AP fees for next 4-5 years for each 485 applicant).
I believe that in a master move CIS (and maybe DOS) has buried the skeletons for good now. This has become almost like a game of chess. With each bulletin, CIS is becoming stronger and nastier like Voldemart!
tattoo say Facebook+tags+love+you
jvordar
04-07 07:40 PM
thnx CADude... did you had to provide job description used in your labor or your last H1? if not then did the new employer used their own description?
more...
pictures pictures i love you quotes for
burnt
05-28 02:13 PM
Here is my observation
1. Since your H1 with your original employer A was rejected the next step from your employer would be to revoke the H1 petition ( i am not sure if rejection means automatic revocation)
2. You implicitly used AC21 by moving to a new employer and working on an EAD
3. You could have an issue if, employer A revokes your I140. There is some evidence to suggest that lot of such cases are getting NOID and getting rejected. This is based on readings on this forum in other threads.
4. On the contrary if employer A is not withdrawing your I140 which means he is still willing to support your GC ( implicit meaning is that you will work for him in future). You might get an RFE next time you apply for some renewal or just like that on your 485 asking you for 'proof of employment'. In which case you submit the necessary documentation.
The key here really is to make sure your Employer A does not revoke your I140. I know the advocates of AC21 have been arguing in the other threads that it beats the purpose of Ac21 if USCIS is rejecting such cases but its a grey area and certainly a cause for concern.
- cheers
kris
Kris - Do you have a case where the applicants I-485 got denied, because of AC 21? When I say denied, I mean someone who even after filing MTR, Contacting CongressMan, and writing to Ombudsman could not reverse the denial decision?
I personally don't know of any such case. And if you don't have such a case, then please do not scare people.
1. Since your H1 with your original employer A was rejected the next step from your employer would be to revoke the H1 petition ( i am not sure if rejection means automatic revocation)
2. You implicitly used AC21 by moving to a new employer and working on an EAD
3. You could have an issue if, employer A revokes your I140. There is some evidence to suggest that lot of such cases are getting NOID and getting rejected. This is based on readings on this forum in other threads.
4. On the contrary if employer A is not withdrawing your I140 which means he is still willing to support your GC ( implicit meaning is that you will work for him in future). You might get an RFE next time you apply for some renewal or just like that on your 485 asking you for 'proof of employment'. In which case you submit the necessary documentation.
The key here really is to make sure your Employer A does not revoke your I140. I know the advocates of AC21 have been arguing in the other threads that it beats the purpose of Ac21 if USCIS is rejecting such cases but its a grey area and certainly a cause for concern.
- cheers
kris
Kris - Do you have a case where the applicants I-485 got denied, because of AC 21? When I say denied, I mean someone who even after filing MTR, Contacting CongressMan, and writing to Ombudsman could not reverse the denial decision?
I personally don't know of any such case. And if you don't have such a case, then please do not scare people.
dresses gives you i love you,
txuser
03-12 06:27 AM
You need to go to https://efiling.uscis.dhs.gov/efile/ and create an account for e-filing your petition.
I-539 Form and Instructions (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=94d12c1a6855d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
I-765 Form and Instructions (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=73ddd59cb7a5d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=7d316c0b4c3bf110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD)
When you actually do the e-filing, the system will ask you if you want to file I-765 concurrently. You should say yes it will prompt you with the details for filing I-765.
I-539 Form and Instructions (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=94d12c1a6855d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
I-765 Form and Instructions (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=73ddd59cb7a5d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=7d316c0b4c3bf110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD)
When you actually do the e-filing, the system will ask you if you want to file I-765 concurrently. You should say yes it will prompt you with the details for filing I-765.
more...
makeup about Facebook+tags+love
Mikoers
February 19th, 2004, 07:52 AM
Am I the only one who thinks it would be sheer genius if Kodak was to license the Canon mount? Imagine if they offered both Nikon and Canon mounts (even better - an interchangeable mount plate so you could have it both ways on one body)!
Surely this is possible. Perhaps Canon is blocking them or it's just not cost-effective?
Don
It could possibly be Kodak prefer Nikon bodies and lenses. Mike
Surely this is possible. Perhaps Canon is blocking them or it's just not cost-effective?
Don
It could possibly be Kodak prefer Nikon bodies and lenses. Mike
girlfriend Love, marriage, happiness
Steve Mitchell
January 17th, 2005, 09:47 AM
Nice job Anders. 2,3,4 and 5 are the best of these I believe. You're exactly right about practice. The more you shoot the better you will get, as you are demonstrating. Patience and alertness are the key as well. When you can't control what's happening, you have to anticipate, and be alert to catch in when it happens. Shooting from the penalty box allows from some great shots. Be alert in there though. The first time I did that a puck whistled by myhead. Thank goodness I ducked and moved my head. Water from the ice was literally on my ear and the puck hit behind me. I would have hit me square in the head.
hairstyles facebook tags i love you. i
lost_in_gc_land
02-02 03:39 AM
Yes you can fedex the AP to india and yes she can use it while coming back if needed. I got this from USCIS level 2 immigration officer.:D
Hello,
I would like to check with you if you know of someone who has used an AP that was approved while that person had left the US and received it by mail/fedex/etc. to get back in the US. I am in a situation where my H1 stamping is in security/background check and it been that way for over 75 days. I have an AP that was approved and mailed to me but I have been told by my lawyer that it is not ok to use AP or atleast without risk of not being allowed entry
Hello,
I would like to check with you if you know of someone who has used an AP that was approved while that person had left the US and received it by mail/fedex/etc. to get back in the US. I am in a situation where my H1 stamping is in security/background check and it been that way for over 75 days. I have an AP that was approved and mailed to me but I have been told by my lawyer that it is not ok to use AP or atleast without risk of not being allowed entry
mohitb272
03-19 02:24 PM
Your signature says I 140 was approved, when was it approved and does that mean the USCIS website never updated the status of your I 140?
or was it showing I140 approved before and now it's showing pending?
This is my friend's case not mine. This is mentioned when I first described the case.
Thanks!
or was it showing I140 approved before and now it's showing pending?
This is my friend's case not mine. This is mentioned when I first described the case.
Thanks!
saileshdude
12-03 02:26 PM
Good news obviously but I would not jump on it. 2 reasons - we need to make sure they don't keep this practice & second, I don't trust the source of information 100% based on past information.
I support ItIsNotFunny, PD_Recapturing, NK2006..... for their efforts on AC21 issue.
I agree on this. In the past , murthy lawyers have also claimed to have successfull MTR cases but that hardly created any awareness among USCIS about the AC21 law that they are not supposed to directly deny AOS if underlying I-140 gets revoked. Although we hope its good news but I doubt that this is going to make any difference to any future AOS applications whose I-140 get denied.
I support ItIsNotFunny, PD_Recapturing, NK2006..... for their efforts on AC21 issue.
I agree on this. In the past , murthy lawyers have also claimed to have successfull MTR cases but that hardly created any awareness among USCIS about the AC21 law that they are not supposed to directly deny AOS if underlying I-140 gets revoked. Although we hope its good news but I doubt that this is going to make any difference to any future AOS applications whose I-140 get denied.
No comments:
Post a Comment