snathan
08-18 05:10 PM
If your wife's I-94, which she have received at the time of entering to USA on dependent visa was valid till the date of the starting new the job, she should be fine even if she has not started working on H1 after approval. She has maintained the H4 status during that period as per I-94.
My wife here on H4 and she go H1 but she started job after a while as employer delayed. But her status was valid. Even she told the same to the US counselor New Delhi and she got h1 stamping done. Gap of H1 approval effective date and employment was about 2 months.
If you would ask this question to any attorney, you may get same reply. But asking to attorney is advisable.
This is not the case always...Your wife might be lucky or the IO was kind person. Normally if you can not provide the pay stub in H1B you are out of status. Please read the definition of H1B and you will get clear picture about this.
Also if your wife received the I-94 after the H1B approval, she was in status. Because whichever was the latest I-94 - thats the valid one and in effect. So that might be the reason your wife didnt fave any issue.
My wife here on H4 and she go H1 but she started job after a while as employer delayed. But her status was valid. Even she told the same to the US counselor New Delhi and she got h1 stamping done. Gap of H1 approval effective date and employment was about 2 months.
If you would ask this question to any attorney, you may get same reply. But asking to attorney is advisable.
This is not the case always...Your wife might be lucky or the IO was kind person. Normally if you can not provide the pay stub in H1B you are out of status. Please read the definition of H1B and you will get clear picture about this.
Also if your wife received the I-94 after the H1B approval, she was in status. Because whichever was the latest I-94 - thats the valid one and in effect. So that might be the reason your wife didnt fave any issue.
wallpaper long curly hair styles 2011
kaisersose
05-30 10:17 AM
Hi gurus, Please advise
I have an approved I-140 and july 485 filer, also have valid h1 till 2010.
I work for company X and have an offer from company Y.
What are my best options now
1. Transfer H1 to Y - if yes what impact would this have on my GC processing?
should the new H1-B Job code match with my Labor Certification?
2. Use EAD - the complication here is my desi employer filed my labor
as an IT Manager which i am not and i am not sure the new employer would
give me the matching offer letter.
Thanks,
Krishna:confused:
You are saying "H-1b or AC21". It should be "H-1b or EAD" as using either to change jobs at this time is possible only under the AC21 provision.
H-1b or EAD, your new job description should be similar to the job description in your GC Labor. Otherwise, you are at risk if you get an RFE or an interview call.
I have an approved I-140 and july 485 filer, also have valid h1 till 2010.
I work for company X and have an offer from company Y.
What are my best options now
1. Transfer H1 to Y - if yes what impact would this have on my GC processing?
should the new H1-B Job code match with my Labor Certification?
2. Use EAD - the complication here is my desi employer filed my labor
as an IT Manager which i am not and i am not sure the new employer would
give me the matching offer letter.
Thanks,
Krishna:confused:
You are saying "H-1b or AC21". It should be "H-1b or EAD" as using either to change jobs at this time is possible only under the AC21 provision.
H-1b or EAD, your new job description should be similar to the job description in your GC Labor. Otherwise, you are at risk if you get an RFE or an interview call.
Curious_Techie
09-30 10:12 AM
I also have soft LUD on 09/26 and 09/29...But the online status still shows status pending and transferred to the office.
2011 Tattoan Sangar: haircuts for
pappu
01-30 05:46 PM
http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/4480oomshiva
Do not post the same link on multiple threads. They will be deleted. Just post on the thread where it is useful. There is a news article thread where you should post your links.
Do not post the same link on multiple threads. They will be deleted. Just post on the thread where it is useful. There is a news article thread where you should post your links.
more...
Sirisian
12-08 12:20 PM
congratulation to all winner... especially to winner who use the "stargate" background and put the text only...
nice contest.....
I sense a bit of sarcasm? You're "It's Okay" button was a good painting. I'm actually amazed the flower got third place.
Also does this contest remind anyone of pogs? That's what I thought this contest was when I first saw it.
nice contest.....
I sense a bit of sarcasm? You're "It's Okay" button was a good painting. I'm actually amazed the flower got third place.
Also does this contest remind anyone of pogs? That's what I thought this contest was when I first saw it.
wandmaker
05-14 02:19 PM
This is not a joke, we have received this querry, and are seeking some helpful advice.
If you have worked on location other than what's mentioned in the certified LCA, it will be considered as an unauthorized employment, eventually application for adjustment of status will be denied on the basis of you engaged in unauthorized employment.
If you have worked on location other than what's mentioned in the certified LCA, it will be considered as an unauthorized employment, eventually application for adjustment of status will be denied on the basis of you engaged in unauthorized employment.
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
2010 long hairstyles 2011 women.
venky80
06-15 07:43 PM
I have a masters degree in mechanical engineering and I have been working as a system analyst for the last 2 years, does anybody here can advise if I can apply for EB2?
If yes what are the chances that there would be an RFE asking why is masters needed, I do think having done my masters i am able to understand and do the job better, but there is really no specif need for it.
Has anyone else gone through this confusion? What are the things to keep in mind?
Is there a special need how the job requirement should be?
Please advise.
Thanks
If yes what are the chances that there would be an RFE asking why is masters needed, I do think having done my masters i am able to understand and do the job better, but there is really no specif need for it.
Has anyone else gone through this confusion? What are the things to keep in mind?
Is there a special need how the job requirement should be?
Please advise.
Thanks
more...
cygent
02-24 01:08 AM
Some folks may have got away with it, the chance is low for an audit particularly if you earn <100k/yr. Do the research yourself independently. The conclusion will be that you CANNOT deduct these expenses. For TAX purposes Immigration has nothing to do with your work.
In addition for I-485, your EMPLOYER does NOT have to pay for it at all, since it based on the individual. I am am sure many of us have got into trouble because our "friends" or "relatives" have told us things just because they heard from other "FRIENDS" or "RELATIVES". I know of enough cases myself.
Hello IVans,
My employer did not pay for I485 expenses (USCIS fees, Lawyer expenses and Medical exam expenses). I paid all these expenses out of my pocket. Today one of my friends told me that these expenses could qualify as tax-deductible expenses. I have my doubts, but want to get you thoughts.
Thanks.
In addition for I-485, your EMPLOYER does NOT have to pay for it at all, since it based on the individual. I am am sure many of us have got into trouble because our "friends" or "relatives" have told us things just because they heard from other "FRIENDS" or "RELATIVES". I know of enough cases myself.
Hello IVans,
My employer did not pay for I485 expenses (USCIS fees, Lawyer expenses and Medical exam expenses). I paid all these expenses out of my pocket. Today one of my friends told me that these expenses could qualify as tax-deductible expenses. I have my doubts, but want to get you thoughts.
Thanks.
hair 2011 long curly hairstyles for
tinoue
09-27 08:24 AM
Hi All,
I received the I-485 reciept notice yesterday from my lawyer (see below for my info), but the alien number on I-485 is different from the number on my approved I-140. My I-140 has a number starting with A099, but my I-485 reciept notice has a number starting with A088. Someone in this forum mentioned that A099 is for the primary applicant and A088 is for the dependant. I am the primary applicant for I-485, so if it is true, I should get A099, not A088. I am not sure if I can have two different alien numbers or if this is a mistake by USCIS. Is anyone in the same situation?
I am sorry if this issue is discussed previously (I couldn't find the related thread). I would greatly appreciate your input.
Thank you very much.
-------------------------------------------------------------
EB1 ROW
PD: 08/2006
140: approved in 06/2007 (NSC)
485 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
765 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
131 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
FP notice recieved on 09/24/07
FP appointment (self and spouse): 10/16/07
I received the I-485 reciept notice yesterday from my lawyer (see below for my info), but the alien number on I-485 is different from the number on my approved I-140. My I-140 has a number starting with A099, but my I-485 reciept notice has a number starting with A088. Someone in this forum mentioned that A099 is for the primary applicant and A088 is for the dependant. I am the primary applicant for I-485, so if it is true, I should get A099, not A088. I am not sure if I can have two different alien numbers or if this is a mistake by USCIS. Is anyone in the same situation?
I am sorry if this issue is discussed previously (I couldn't find the related thread). I would greatly appreciate your input.
Thank you very much.
-------------------------------------------------------------
EB1 ROW
PD: 08/2006
140: approved in 06/2007 (NSC)
485 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
765 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
131 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
FP notice recieved on 09/24/07
FP appointment (self and spouse): 10/16/07
more...
eyeopeners05@yahoo.com
06-02 01:09 PM
Isnt all that in picture only when you are travelling outside ?
hot hairstyles 2011 women long
WaldenPond
02-24 11:57 AM
Here is my honest opinion.... you guys need to highlight the fact that IV is equlally concerned about PBEC issue. This is what i have heard and read from a lot of folks... Just to let u guys know that even my app is stuck with PBEC..
The main goal of IV is to bring an end to labor processing delay in the backlog center and I-485 retrogression. We have consistently mentioned this in all possible forums. This has been clearly mentioned on home page. And if there is anybody who has any doubt, could you please request them to please call at (281) 576-7185.
I am beginning to realize that for some people who do not want to contribute, there will always be plenty of reasons and plenty of excuses not to participate & contribute. I think these people are the once who are actually responsible for the problems of all of us. Our problems do not originate in the slow GC process or the existing bad legislation. Our problems originate due to the people who are always looking for reasons to not participate or do anything or these people who are always looking for reasons to feel offended. And these people are sure doing a wonderful job because there will always be plenty of reasons to feel offended or not feel part of the group or not find enough motivation to feel part of the bigger community.
Asking questions or requesting a specific item in the goals is one thing. People beating the drum of transparency �. That is no big deal either. Everybody is entitled for their opinion. But people watching from the sidelines or for the people who want to include agenda as Goals of the IV or for the people putting conditions to their contributions, here is what I have to say to you. I would sincerely request you to never visit Immigration Voice or any other immigration related forum or website. You guys are the real problem because you are the once helping to foster the current system by not participating in brining the change. At the end of the day, know that you are the real culprits not the system which will be shaped by the contribution of each of us.
In last 2 weeks the contributions has really come down drastically. Everybody please note that we are running very low on the funds collection. All of us have two choices. One, contribute for this cause generously and lead the friends and acquaintances by example and tell them to do the same. Secondly, find reasons to not participate or not to contribute due to this, that or whatever �. The choice is entirely yours. But with your choice also understand whether you are being part of the solution or part of the problem. And whatever you do (including posting negative messages), I would sincerely request everybody to ask yourself one question, whether you (or your post) are strengthening or weakening this effort.
I would like to request all the members who have not yet contributed to please contribute generously. Please put your money where your mouth is. This effort or any similar effort for that matter cannot do much without the necessary funds that only come in the form of contributions from its members. And for those of us who have already contributed in the past, its time to please contribute more and help to fuel this effort.
This is not just about the life of the people who started this effort or the core/active members who have taken the initiative and responsibility. This is about all of us whether or not you feel part of it or not. It doesn�t make any difference how you feel about the situation or state of affairs. Why? Because this will be over very soon. And for the people who want to continue to ponder over this idea of whether or not they have a sense of belonging to IV, I would sincerely request you to please understand and know that by any contribution to this effort, you are strengthening your our voices. Know that this is not about anybody else but you.
The main goal of IV is to bring an end to labor processing delay in the backlog center and I-485 retrogression. We have consistently mentioned this in all possible forums. This has been clearly mentioned on home page. And if there is anybody who has any doubt, could you please request them to please call at (281) 576-7185.
I am beginning to realize that for some people who do not want to contribute, there will always be plenty of reasons and plenty of excuses not to participate & contribute. I think these people are the once who are actually responsible for the problems of all of us. Our problems do not originate in the slow GC process or the existing bad legislation. Our problems originate due to the people who are always looking for reasons to not participate or do anything or these people who are always looking for reasons to feel offended. And these people are sure doing a wonderful job because there will always be plenty of reasons to feel offended or not feel part of the group or not find enough motivation to feel part of the bigger community.
Asking questions or requesting a specific item in the goals is one thing. People beating the drum of transparency �. That is no big deal either. Everybody is entitled for their opinion. But people watching from the sidelines or for the people who want to include agenda as Goals of the IV or for the people putting conditions to their contributions, here is what I have to say to you. I would sincerely request you to never visit Immigration Voice or any other immigration related forum or website. You guys are the real problem because you are the once helping to foster the current system by not participating in brining the change. At the end of the day, know that you are the real culprits not the system which will be shaped by the contribution of each of us.
In last 2 weeks the contributions has really come down drastically. Everybody please note that we are running very low on the funds collection. All of us have two choices. One, contribute for this cause generously and lead the friends and acquaintances by example and tell them to do the same. Secondly, find reasons to not participate or not to contribute due to this, that or whatever �. The choice is entirely yours. But with your choice also understand whether you are being part of the solution or part of the problem. And whatever you do (including posting negative messages), I would sincerely request everybody to ask yourself one question, whether you (or your post) are strengthening or weakening this effort.
I would like to request all the members who have not yet contributed to please contribute generously. Please put your money where your mouth is. This effort or any similar effort for that matter cannot do much without the necessary funds that only come in the form of contributions from its members. And for those of us who have already contributed in the past, its time to please contribute more and help to fuel this effort.
This is not just about the life of the people who started this effort or the core/active members who have taken the initiative and responsibility. This is about all of us whether or not you feel part of it or not. It doesn�t make any difference how you feel about the situation or state of affairs. Why? Because this will be over very soon. And for the people who want to continue to ponder over this idea of whether or not they have a sense of belonging to IV, I would sincerely request you to please understand and know that by any contribution to this effort, you are strengthening your our voices. Know that this is not about anybody else but you.
more...
house latest long hair styles
yabadaba
07-12 08:47 AM
what the hell is AILF doing????? why hasnt the lawsuit been filed yet????
tattoo 2011 Women Prom Long
lazycis
05-01 12:52 PM
If I-485 is still pending, you can try to use AC21 and port old I-140 to new employer. Nothing to lose, a lot to gain if it works out. AC21 is not clearly defined and it's not codified in regulations so you have a good chance to prevail. The only problem I see is that the old employer no longer exists. Termination of the employer's business is one of the reasons for automatic revocation of I-140 (see 8 CFR 205.1(a)(iii)(D)). However if old employer was simply merged into another company, you can argue that business was not terminated.
more...
pictures 2011 trendy long hairstyles
sumagiri
02-25 03:08 PM
USCIS can pre-adjudicate a case, even when visa numbers are not available. This means that USCIS processes all the application, but just waits for a visa number to finalize it.
Pre-adjudication. That would be really good. According to latest processing times, NSC shows July 30th 2007 for 485. So does that mean that cases before that are either adjudicated/pre-adjudicated or atleast there is an RFE?
Is there any one who confirmed that their case is pre-adjudicated @ NSC. ?
Pre-adjudication. That would be really good. According to latest processing times, NSC shows July 30th 2007 for 485. So does that mean that cases before that are either adjudicated/pre-adjudicated or atleast there is an RFE?
Is there any one who confirmed that their case is pre-adjudicated @ NSC. ?
dresses Best Long Hair Styles
panky72
08-13 02:07 AM
oye chappan... ever been to indore?
there is a small shops complex there called chappan dukaan... very famous hangout place for all indorians... just remembered :)
I have been to chappan dukaan in indore. nice place to hangout in college days:)
there is a small shops complex there called chappan dukaan... very famous hangout place for all indorians... just remembered :)
I have been to chappan dukaan in indore. nice place to hangout in college days:)
more...
makeup long hair styles 2011 for
xgoogle
08-20 01:48 PM
I just called USCIS and according to the person I spoke with, it takes approximately 30 days from the date of approval of primary applicant for approval of dependents.
I doubt if that is the case. I know people where the whole family got it.
Also check out this other thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=279578&posted=1#post279578
I doubt if that is the case. I know people where the whole family got it.
Also check out this other thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=279578&posted=1#post279578
girlfriend 2011 inter hairstyles for
kaisersose
07-16 02:39 PM
You've got to hand it to these attorneys. They have a way of writing a lot without saying anything.
Sheela Murthy excels in this art. In this situation, should we still file for 485 or not? She will write a whole page on this and finally say you have to make that decision yourself.
Thank you, but I already know that one!
Sheela Murthy excels in this art. In this situation, should we still file for 485 or not? She will write a whole page on this and finally say you have to make that decision yourself.
Thank you, but I already know that one!
hairstyles latest long hair styles for
kingkon_2000
04-16 09:56 AM
Hi folks,
Just got back from UK on Friday after a month of family time, medicals and our embassy interview! Wanted to let you all know that we were approved and happily back in the US!!
Congrats on the latest admin wins and movements in campaigns/projects. I wanted to say a huge thank you but not farewell to the many kind folks who kept my spirits high in the short time I have been with IV:
abhijitp, needhelp, digital2k, paskal, gsc999, waiting4gc, pappu, chanduv23, santb1975, nolaindian32, walking dude, ja1hind, logiclife and many more. All of you rock and America is very lucky to have such genuine and brilliant people like you. I wish you the very best for your own journey.
I will be around for sure, just have to concentrate on securing some work and life for a bit, finally!
my best :)
Congratulations to you and family... seems like things are moving forward for us... Really happy for you...
Just got back from UK on Friday after a month of family time, medicals and our embassy interview! Wanted to let you all know that we were approved and happily back in the US!!
Congrats on the latest admin wins and movements in campaigns/projects. I wanted to say a huge thank you but not farewell to the many kind folks who kept my spirits high in the short time I have been with IV:
abhijitp, needhelp, digital2k, paskal, gsc999, waiting4gc, pappu, chanduv23, santb1975, nolaindian32, walking dude, ja1hind, logiclife and many more. All of you rock and America is very lucky to have such genuine and brilliant people like you. I wish you the very best for your own journey.
I will be around for sure, just have to concentrate on securing some work and life for a bit, finally!
my best :)
Congratulations to you and family... seems like things are moving forward for us... Really happy for you...
srikondoji
07-17 02:21 PM
Go little bit more SOUTH and you will end up in NORTH and this is called optimism and i love this optimism over pessimism.
Everybody had different sources and those sources have their own sources.
So, sometimes your sources are wrong and relying them we tend to go wrong. Thats all to it.
However, iam of the view that we should believe all the sources both negative and positive and then make your educated guesees.
This is my guess
There will be relief but not to everyone.
USCIS/DOS will announce the news without an apology, but it will not please everybody.
They will accept few applications just to nake their case stronger and remove the teeth of AILF lawsuit.
USCIS/DOS is ready to take head on with AILF but only after making their asses stiff.
USCIS/DOS knows their bad deeds but is not passing all of it to its masters.
Masters are saying why we need to bend over, lets take on these immigrants.
At the end few will be fired and few will resign from USCIS and DOS with fewer I-485 applications accepted from July 2.
Thats all.
Everybody had different sources and those sources have their own sources.
So, sometimes your sources are wrong and relying them we tend to go wrong. Thats all to it.
However, iam of the view that we should believe all the sources both negative and positive and then make your educated guesees.
This is my guess
There will be relief but not to everyone.
USCIS/DOS will announce the news without an apology, but it will not please everybody.
They will accept few applications just to nake their case stronger and remove the teeth of AILF lawsuit.
USCIS/DOS is ready to take head on with AILF but only after making their asses stiff.
USCIS/DOS knows their bad deeds but is not passing all of it to its masters.
Masters are saying why we need to bend over, lets take on these immigrants.
At the end few will be fired and few will resign from USCIS and DOS with fewer I-485 applications accepted from July 2.
Thats all.
burnt
12-12 03:39 PM
No questions asked about visa or 485. Just had to show my passport and AP document :)
Thanks for the response. My wife has started working on EAD. So when she comes back, will she have to enter on AP? And as you said, they would not ask for I-485 receipts...Correct? I don't have I-485 receipts and I am just scared that if they ask for it, and I don't have it, then what happens...
Do you know of someone who was asked for the I-485 receipts on their way back?
Thanks for the response. My wife has started working on EAD. So when she comes back, will she have to enter on AP? And as you said, they would not ask for I-485 receipts...Correct? I don't have I-485 receipts and I am just scared that if they ask for it, and I don't have it, then what happens...
Do you know of someone who was asked for the I-485 receipts on their way back?
No comments:
Post a Comment