coolmanasip
03-07 11:54 AM
Please read my scrap carefully.....I did say that you need a letter from the company stating that they will employ you on a full time permenant position upon receiving your green card!.....However, you do not need any other support like ability to pay, labor certifications, etc.
wallpaper Vanessa Hudgens#39; daring dress
Macaca
07-17 10:26 AM
One of their fax letters is below, which is a complete mis-representation of truth - look at point #2.
Please post URL
Please post URL
vansree
07-13 06:29 PM
I talked to her related my case complexity - Border revoking my visa - She just wants money. She cannot provide any clear details, any expectations.
Just to be part of the cloud and claim something she did, actually apart from the web site, she wont even talk to you once take up the case. Some of her colleagues or assistants talk.
She just want to get money ... Being Indian, I can say she is typical person for money. Highly C** mind...
if it is trouble some, she wont even reply!
Just to be part of the cloud and claim something she did, actually apart from the web site, she wont even talk to you once take up the case. Some of her colleagues or assistants talk.
She just want to get money ... Being Indian, I can say she is typical person for money. Highly C** mind...
if it is trouble some, she wont even reply!
2011 vanessa hudgens 2011 leak.
gc28262
07-18 04:50 PM
Keep predicting and calculating. USCIS will prove you wrong once again.:)
more...
indianindian2006
07-14 06:09 PM
This is aboslutly incorrect. Dont spread false information.
Here is the Q&A in USCIS memo abot changing employer before 180 days
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate
You are correct but his case could be that his employer cancelled his 140 which could damage his case more than the use of AC21 to change employers.
Here is the Q&A in USCIS memo abot changing employer before 180 days
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate
You are correct but his case could be that his employer cancelled his 140 which could damage his case more than the use of AC21 to change employers.
whiteStallion
09-10 04:27 PM
i guess they were very happy that they discussed the horse issue and they decided to take a well deserved break...as for 5882 who cares, as one poster mentioned, the horses are US citizens and they support the economy by eating grass. Republicans are happy because legal horses will be eating legal grass as opposed to illegals cutting and shipping grass to the horses. Democrats will be happy because the horses are well looked after.
Nice humour!
Nice humour!
more...
WillIWin?
07-24 12:24 PM
This is my law firm. Seems like they have submitted many applications (140 + 485 concurrently) WITHOUT the employment offer letter.
Anyone else with this firm ? Also I see that there are people who have already sent in their 485 applications. My 2 cents:
- Dont send in multiple 485s (with the same underlying I-140. Multiple 485s with multiple I-140s is fine). Higher chances of rejection than just a missing employment letter.
- If your lawyer is a relatively reputable firm, then chances are that they have done this in the past and have not had any issues. So chances are they know what they are doing.
Anyone else with this firm ? Also I see that there are people who have already sent in their 485 applications. My 2 cents:
- Dont send in multiple 485s (with the same underlying I-140. Multiple 485s with multiple I-140s is fine). Higher chances of rejection than just a missing employment letter.
- If your lawyer is a relatively reputable firm, then chances are that they have done this in the past and have not had any issues. So chances are they know what they are doing.
2010 Style Watch: Vanessa Hudgens#39;
mps
07-23 04:58 PM
My attorney has specifically advised us that we don't have to file again. My application reached NSC on July 2nd.
Continuing on this forum with more generic title
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10383
Per Greg Siskind -- July 2nd filers might have to file again, as all July 2nd application were rejected. Check out the link below as well as the comment section for the blog
Greg Siskind is reporting the following about July2nd rejection here
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/faqs-part-1.html
part of above post --
USCIS did not state how cases filed and rejected on the 2nd are to be handled other than to say that properly filed applications would be accepted. This presumably covers the many cases filed after the second that were held, but it doesn�t explain what will happen to the cases received earlier. We hope USCIS will issue special instructions to issue July 2nd receipt dates to those who are able to document they attempted to file. We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing. Hopefully, again, USCIS will institute a process for such individuals to avoid being penalized.
USCIS has not announced any details yet on how it will determine which cases get 2007 visa numbers that might still be available. We also don�t know yet how cases will be processed that are not in the batch of cases that get green card numbers this year. For those who will have to get numbers in future years, applications should be worked by the order of the priority date. So applicants with labor certifications approved some time back, for example, should go before people in the same category with later priority dates.
For individuals filing cases not requiring a labor certification (such as Schedule A cases and national interest waivers), the priority date is the date of filing. Because there may be hundreds of thousands of applications received between July 2nd and August 17th with many of these cases not requiring a labor certification, the date during this six week period a case is filed could make a big difference in terms of when a case will complete processing. And, again, getting that July 2nd priority date for those who filed early and were rejected could make a big difference in when their cases are ultimately processed through to completion.
Continuing on this forum with more generic title
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10383
Per Greg Siskind -- July 2nd filers might have to file again, as all July 2nd application were rejected. Check out the link below as well as the comment section for the blog
Greg Siskind is reporting the following about July2nd rejection here
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/faqs-part-1.html
part of above post --
USCIS did not state how cases filed and rejected on the 2nd are to be handled other than to say that properly filed applications would be accepted. This presumably covers the many cases filed after the second that were held, but it doesn�t explain what will happen to the cases received earlier. We hope USCIS will issue special instructions to issue July 2nd receipt dates to those who are able to document they attempted to file. We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing. Hopefully, again, USCIS will institute a process for such individuals to avoid being penalized.
USCIS has not announced any details yet on how it will determine which cases get 2007 visa numbers that might still be available. We also don�t know yet how cases will be processed that are not in the batch of cases that get green card numbers this year. For those who will have to get numbers in future years, applications should be worked by the order of the priority date. So applicants with labor certifications approved some time back, for example, should go before people in the same category with later priority dates.
For individuals filing cases not requiring a labor certification (such as Schedule A cases and national interest waivers), the priority date is the date of filing. Because there may be hundreds of thousands of applications received between July 2nd and August 17th with many of these cases not requiring a labor certification, the date during this six week period a case is filed could make a big difference in terms of when a case will complete processing. And, again, getting that July 2nd priority date for those who filed early and were rejected could make a big difference in when their cases are ultimately processed through to completion.
more...
jackrabbit
07-17 11:01 AM
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
Does anyone know if we can sue them. I am sure that they are a registered organization.
Does anyone know if we can sue them. I am sure that they are a registered organization.
hair 2011 vanessa hudgens maxi
CSPAvictim
07-09 06:53 PM
I have a question: If this is indeed an internal DOS regulation, which it most probably is, does it mean that DOS can make changes without sufficient notice to the applicants/public? Does the Administrative Procedures Act come into play in such a situation?
Remember this is internal DoS regulation and not a US Code or Law. They can change at any time and way they want to.
The whole law-suit is essentially about hardship caused to applicants in multiple dimensions with a sprinkling of violation of law (info on which is still quiet hazy )to give some back-bone to the argument in the law-suit!
Remember this is internal DoS regulation and not a US Code or Law. They can change at any time and way they want to.
The whole law-suit is essentially about hardship caused to applicants in multiple dimensions with a sprinkling of violation of law (info on which is still quiet hazy )to give some back-bone to the argument in the law-suit!
more...
abd
09-21 12:33 PM
Yes was similar to yours. The status did change to Review. They just got it yesterday and I saw hard lud yesterday and a soft lud today. I did not know how my Attorney responded or worded it, I just sent him the EVL from current employer.
My status changed yesterday night 8.45 (odd time) , to Evidence review. Keeping fingers crossed.
My status changed yesterday night 8.45 (odd time) , to Evidence review. Keeping fingers crossed.
hot Stars like Vanessa Hudgens,…
mirage
02-08 05:49 PM
we are having a conference call at 6 PM EST today, please me for conf. cal details..
Thanks
Thanks
more...
house Hudgens#39; national campaign
pkak
07-13 06:00 PM
All the data shows that we have 20K EB2 I/C with PD before 6/1/2006, and it is comparable with the unused 20K quota from EB1 and EB2-ROW. As stated by Openhemer, the 2 year jump is due to the spillover of 20K to EB2 instead of EB3-ROW and there will NOT be any significant retrogression in Oct. However, a petition is being organized in this forum to stopping this spillover. Only if the petition succeed, we will see EB2 date goes back to 2004.
EB2-India folks should also initiate a petition campaign (on lines of the EB3-India folks) to make sure that these 25K visas do get adjudicated before fiscal year �08 ends.
USCIS may well end up wasting a bulk of these visas, contending that since they are statutorily required to adjudicate all EAD applications within 90 days, and there is a surge in EAD renewals because of (a) July-07 visa bulletin fiasco; and (b) people applying for renewal this month, hoping to get 2 year EAD. Therefore, because of surge in EAD applications, they do not have resources to use up all of this year�s visa numbers.
If this happens even EB3 India will be potential losers also.
EB2-India folks should also initiate a petition campaign (on lines of the EB3-India folks) to make sure that these 25K visas do get adjudicated before fiscal year �08 ends.
USCIS may well end up wasting a bulk of these visas, contending that since they are statutorily required to adjudicate all EAD applications within 90 days, and there is a surge in EAD renewals because of (a) July-07 visa bulletin fiasco; and (b) people applying for renewal this month, hoping to get 2 year EAD. Therefore, because of surge in EAD applications, they do not have resources to use up all of this year�s visa numbers.
If this happens even EB3 India will be potential losers also.
tattoo Vanessa Hudgens wore one of
mallu
02-16 03:20 PM
14% Asians Americans in US. (includes indians,chinese koreans, viatnamese, japanese etc)
I dont know about India and china specifically.
There are 2.7 million Indian americans in the U.S and 9.3 Chinese Americans.
You do the math.
Not sure if the totals include GC holders
What i would say is that if folks from a particular country is getting 'edge' in numbers , then the diversity axe should be applied. In that sense i was wondering whether the country quota applied is 'fair' ( i know what is fair is determined by the country which made the rules/laws/practices . ) to India,China .
I dont know about India and china specifically.
There are 2.7 million Indian americans in the U.S and 9.3 Chinese Americans.
You do the math.
Not sure if the totals include GC holders
What i would say is that if folks from a particular country is getting 'edge' in numbers , then the diversity axe should be applied. In that sense i was wondering whether the country quota applied is 'fair' ( i know what is fair is determined by the country which made the rules/laws/practices . ) to India,China .
more...
pictures hot Vanessa+hudgens+style+2011
GCBy3000
01-16 10:14 AM
I visited this site three times this morning and this thread subject did not attact me at all. Fourth time since I ran out of all issues, I thought to open this up to see what it is.
Surprised to see it is created by IV core for an important issue. I would suggest to change the subject to a catchy one to prompt the users to open it or put this in home page somewhere eye catching.
Surprised to see it is created by IV core for an important issue. I would suggest to change the subject to a catchy one to prompt the users to open it or put this in home page somewhere eye catching.
dresses Hudgensfirst look vanessa is
ratiwari
07-24 01:14 PM
As far as I know my attorney wanted employment letter only for those whose I-140 approval did not come .With I-140 approved you don't need employment letter. I-140 deals basically with the status of employer.
more...
makeup Vanessa Hudgens
Libra
09-10 12:23 PM
Andy_garcia, its good for you that your wife and kid are working. We people dont use consulting firm to get our GC, but got stuck with those companies because if we leave them we have to start whole GC process. So we dont want that to happen and wait for 10 more yrs to get our GC.
I have been here for 8 years and I do not have the option of going back to my country like you guys from India. I applied for my 485 2 years ago and my son and wife are working already.
When I was on H1, I was happy with the company. It seems that people who are using the sponsor company as a tool to get the GC are the ones complaininf the most about.
I have been here for 8 years and I do not have the option of going back to my country like you guys from India. I applied for my 485 2 years ago and my son and wife are working already.
When I was on H1, I was happy with the company. It seems that people who are using the sponsor company as a tool to get the GC are the ones complaininf the most about.
girlfriend Posted: March 24, 2011
battineni
09-09 12:44 PM
Number of VISA numbers are same for EB2 I and EB3 I or not???
If in case same....why we not getting any approvals for EB3 compare to EB2?
I can understand why EB3 in 2001 and EB2 in 2006..
but my question is .... why Eb3 is not moving when EB2 is moving?
=====
Note: I'm not saying anything against EB2 people....I'm just comparing.
=====
If in case same....why we not getting any approvals for EB3 compare to EB2?
I can understand why EB3 in 2001 and EB2 in 2006..
but my question is .... why Eb3 is not moving when EB2 is moving?
=====
Note: I'm not saying anything against EB2 people....I'm just comparing.
=====
hairstyles Vanessa+hudgens+2011+style
![vanessa hudgens style 2011. [New] Vanessa Hudgens, Nina](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uIGqJQ3JxXeUYpiBjtc3NW51m390Q8P7O23eXzJWEtd3PT7yVqtr5N_hx1tXs813qXsSzl-hs3A0soXUQcRVhG0H7nCOV8Eb_TXakmWJr6rhZ3EOtK2aiFK9tONvYndR0uq03oqo7xVQsvU8FskNVO_b4oQ-lZGvu1_z22ig_u=s0-d "[New] Vanessa Hudgens, Nina")
Macaca
07-18 06:31 AM
There is no misunderstanding here, I copied and pasted it from their website so the question of mis-understanding doesn't arise.
Always post URL!
Always post URL!
needhelp!
02-03 12:33 PM
IV already has this as part of the agenda so why try to reinvent the wheel? Currently IV has requested our active involvement in trying to expand our member base to make our voice stronger.
We have professional help to analyze the current political situation to decide on the best course of action that will benefit all members. A lot of background work has to be done before IV can announce a call campaign or letter campaign.
Guys,
I know ROW country may not like this thread, but look at EB-3 India or China, put yourself in our shoes and than you may realize how unfair this country is. In this unprecedented financial turmoil, I feel there are very remote chances for CIR or any package which increase immigration etc would pass, I am taking this initiative to gather as many people I can and go to washington. Again this is not an IV effort. If you are with me , you can spare some time or few days in Washington, please PM me. our sole agenda is bring a 2 line bill to remove country quota...
We have professional help to analyze the current political situation to decide on the best course of action that will benefit all members. A lot of background work has to be done before IV can announce a call campaign or letter campaign.
Guys,
I know ROW country may not like this thread, but look at EB-3 India or China, put yourself in our shoes and than you may realize how unfair this country is. In this unprecedented financial turmoil, I feel there are very remote chances for CIR or any package which increase immigration etc would pass, I am taking this initiative to gather as many people I can and go to washington. Again this is not an IV effort. If you are with me , you can spare some time or few days in Washington, please PM me. our sole agenda is bring a 2 line bill to remove country quota...
pointlesswait
02-04 10:31 AM
some jack left me a message calling me ignorant.
ppl here are discussing his topic to death.. abt changing the per country quota.
No one here wants to even ponder that.. immigration into US is a not a random act.
The policy makers and thinkers may have spent many sleepless nights to arrive at the thought of giving every global citizen an equal opportunity to migrate to this "land of opportunity".
So even an attempt to remove per country quota is absurd and retarded thought.
Be practical and make more realistic suggestions..
a.) IF someone has been inthis country for 10 years ..F1->H1, he shoudl qualify for EAD (no constrains) , until the visa number become avaliable.
b.) Allow for simultaneous 140-485 filing..
so if peeps here think that i am ignorant for saying that attempt to remove country quota is a non-starter.. think again.. DF's
ppl here are discussing his topic to death.. abt changing the per country quota.
No one here wants to even ponder that.. immigration into US is a not a random act.
The policy makers and thinkers may have spent many sleepless nights to arrive at the thought of giving every global citizen an equal opportunity to migrate to this "land of opportunity".
So even an attempt to remove per country quota is absurd and retarded thought.
Be practical and make more realistic suggestions..
a.) IF someone has been inthis country for 10 years ..F1->H1, he shoudl qualify for EAD (no constrains) , until the visa number become avaliable.
b.) Allow for simultaneous 140-485 filing..
so if peeps here think that i am ignorant for saying that attempt to remove country quota is a non-starter.. think again.. DF's
