veni001
02-03 03:53 PM
thank you veni, that is very informative and solid reference.
looks like under 'advanced degree' category, just having a US Masters or foreign equivalent (4+2) is enough. lot of people are under the impression, its MS+3yrs. but the description in USCIS link states just an advanced degree (higher than baccalaureate) is enough. am i reading this right?
BS+5years is equivalent to having an Advanced degree.
But, I think its BS+5yrs, not BS Equivalent + 5 yrs.
That's correct.
Good luck!
looks like under 'advanced degree' category, just having a US Masters or foreign equivalent (4+2) is enough. lot of people are under the impression, its MS+3yrs. but the description in USCIS link states just an advanced degree (higher than baccalaureate) is enough. am i reading this right?
BS+5years is equivalent to having an Advanced degree.
But, I think its BS+5yrs, not BS Equivalent + 5 yrs.
That's correct.
Good luck!
wallpaper free kids word games -- word
binadh
10-06 09:40 AM
Your's is crossed 15 month stage, so you can ask your lawyer to enquire about it...
Hope fully DOL will approve yours soon...
Good luck
Is there anything specific that can be done after 15 months? I was justing waiting for someone to look at my case at DOL. Can you please shed some more light on this?
I tried to find information on the web, but I could not find anything anything particular to a case pending for 15 months or more.
Please share your understanding with us all. I'm sure there are a lot of people who are in the similar situation.
Thanks.
Hope fully DOL will approve yours soon...
Good luck
Is there anything specific that can be done after 15 months? I was justing waiting for someone to look at my case at DOL. Can you please shed some more light on this?
I tried to find information on the web, but I could not find anything anything particular to a case pending for 15 months or more.
Please share your understanding with us all. I'm sure there are a lot of people who are in the similar situation.
Thanks.
sku
01-09 03:53 PM
Yes, I want to know too, I don't know anybody personally who lost the job.
2011 free crossword puzzles for
a_paul1
03-30 01:48 PM
If no, you deserve this and rot in hell.
How in the world did you get so many greens??
You have done your bit. Great! But that doesnt mean everyone has to believe in what you believe. You are acting as if you made a mistake by contributing to IV because other people are not contributing and that is frustrating to you. Please don't think you are doing a favor to anybody by contributing to IV. You are doing it for your own benefit. If somebody doesn't want to contribute, that's fine. Nobody needs a preaching here.
Contributing to IV is not the only possible contribution that a person may make to this world.
How in the world did you get so many greens??
You have done your bit. Great! But that doesnt mean everyone has to believe in what you believe. You are acting as if you made a mistake by contributing to IV because other people are not contributing and that is frustrating to you. Please don't think you are doing a favor to anybody by contributing to IV. You are doing it for your own benefit. If somebody doesn't want to contribute, that's fine. Nobody needs a preaching here.
Contributing to IV is not the only possible contribution that a person may make to this world.
more...
jungalee43
06-30 07:39 AM
Thanks neverbefore.
Buddy, it does seem you are being pre-adjudicated, as the other guys are saying. We had an interview last December for exactly this purpose and the reason was two consecutive failures of clear biometrics on our part. It was for the better though because now our case is just waiting for a visa number unless something changes rather drastically. However, we did not encounter the term "initial interview".
Do indeed take all your documents. I am pasting here the list of docs our attorney asked us to take. These are rough notes I took over the phone so you might find some incoherence. Some of these docs were significant to our case and may not be applicable for you. I would always prefer to go for an overkill in immigration matters, so if anything seems remotely significant, take it along. If you like, you may want to read the account (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/all-other-green-card-issues/21138-my-aos-interview-experience-5.html#post304806) I posted here at IV immediately after our interview. I remember a lot of people advising me to take my attorney along. I didn't because they were asking for a lot of money. You might want to take a call on that.
And just chillax! You have done everything right, so why should anything adverse happen.
What will happen: Oath->Demand for driver's license->Demand for passport
Medical does not expire once filed
Officer will review the file along with us
We need to post a sticky note on file saying we are a family of 3 so we are seen together
Docs:
Appointment notice demands
Paystubs
Employment verification letter from employers
Mortgage papers
Education transcripts and degree
Tax returns
Marriage certificate
Birth certificates
Will be asked to get a police clearance certificate after the interview, so take it beforehand from the cities you have lived in previously
They might give us an I-792, send a copy to attorney. Always get the officer's name!
A copy of July 2007 visa bulletin
Arrival/departure record to/from US
Pictures (passport) and marriage and family
Driver's licenses
H4 and H1B Notices of Action
Buddy, it does seem you are being pre-adjudicated, as the other guys are saying. We had an interview last December for exactly this purpose and the reason was two consecutive failures of clear biometrics on our part. It was for the better though because now our case is just waiting for a visa number unless something changes rather drastically. However, we did not encounter the term "initial interview".
Do indeed take all your documents. I am pasting here the list of docs our attorney asked us to take. These are rough notes I took over the phone so you might find some incoherence. Some of these docs were significant to our case and may not be applicable for you. I would always prefer to go for an overkill in immigration matters, so if anything seems remotely significant, take it along. If you like, you may want to read the account (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/all-other-green-card-issues/21138-my-aos-interview-experience-5.html#post304806) I posted here at IV immediately after our interview. I remember a lot of people advising me to take my attorney along. I didn't because they were asking for a lot of money. You might want to take a call on that.
And just chillax! You have done everything right, so why should anything adverse happen.
What will happen: Oath->Demand for driver's license->Demand for passport
Medical does not expire once filed
Officer will review the file along with us
We need to post a sticky note on file saying we are a family of 3 so we are seen together
Docs:
Appointment notice demands
Paystubs
Employment verification letter from employers
Mortgage papers
Education transcripts and degree
Tax returns
Marriage certificate
Birth certificates
Will be asked to get a police clearance certificate after the interview, so take it beforehand from the cities you have lived in previously
They might give us an I-792, send a copy to attorney. Always get the officer's name!
A copy of July 2007 visa bulletin
Arrival/departure record to/from US
Pictures (passport) and marriage and family
Driver's licenses
H4 and H1B Notices of Action
pappu
11-19 11:11 AM
They posted it sometime back: But this does not talk about applications like II40 that were filed last year and still pending for some people in NSC. I140 for EB2 NIW is as late as August 01, 2006.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=67257de128ce5110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D
Advisory on Processing Times
In the past few months, USCIS has received a significant increase in the number of applications filed. As a result, processing times will likely become longer for applications filed after June 1, 2007.
USCIS is working hard to address the increased volume and will continue to provide additional information on application processing times as it becomes available. For more information, please see our Frequently Asked Questions on receipt delays.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=67257de128ce5110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D
Advisory on Processing Times
In the past few months, USCIS has received a significant increase in the number of applications filed. As a result, processing times will likely become longer for applications filed after June 1, 2007.
USCIS is working hard to address the increased volume and will continue to provide additional information on application processing times as it becomes available. For more information, please see our Frequently Asked Questions on receipt delays.
more...
GCNirvana007
04-08 06:26 PM
As if your ID has any value?
Who cares about annonymous IDs anyways. :D:D:D
Thanks. Hope you get GC soon as well.
Who cares about annonymous IDs anyways. :D:D:D
Thanks. Hope you get GC soon as well.
2010 quot;maths crossword puzzles for
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.
more...
justin150377
06-22 09:32 AM
is a TB skin test neccessary even if you tell the doc you've had a history of positive TB tests? do i have to prove i've had a history of postive TB test for the doctor to remark that on i-693..or can he just remark that without evidence and go on my word
thanks
thanks
hair English worksheets: hospital French puzzle Crossword children christmas
ganguteli
02-09 11:53 AM
US experience won't count much unless you are from fortune 500 company. These days anyone even with Aptech certificate can get a chance to come and work in USA on L visa for short assignments. So if your experience is in a desi consulting firm, I do not think your resume will be attractive.
The figures shown are all looking good for experienced people in good companies. But it is not easy to get jobs as senior people in top companies. Also remember you have to work much more than you work here. You also have to work on Saturdays in a lot of companies. If your clients are in USA you may also need work in the night too to interact with your people in USA. Also remember in small companies you rarely get to do cutting edge world class work or new idea or planning. You will hardly learn or get special trainings.
Grass is always green on the other side
The figures shown are all looking good for experienced people in good companies. But it is not easy to get jobs as senior people in top companies. Also remember you have to work much more than you work here. You also have to work on Saturdays in a lot of companies. If your clients are in USA you may also need work in the night too to interact with your people in USA. Also remember in small companies you rarely get to do cutting edge world class work or new idea or planning. You will hardly learn or get special trainings.
Grass is always green on the other side
more...
pcs
04-15 01:36 PM
Tonne of jobs in IT sector. Apply through www.naukri.com.
Indian immigration system will not discriminate
All the best
Indian immigration system will not discriminate
All the best
hot crossword puzzles free.
moonlight
06-20 12:54 PM
Better check with your lawyer. Becuase when you apply for 485 and get approved your wife's H4 status becomes illegal. So don't know exactly about H1 or H4 on advanced parole. Lawyer is the best person for your case.
more...
house printable bible word search
sj2273
06-11 02:30 PM
I missed the last rally and I regret it. There was a moment in time when we were all really energized. The flower campaign was brilliant. But now we seem to have lost that fire - me included! I dont even remember my dates anymore. I know we have a serious problem of getting people together for anything. But starting small in our own cities and connecting to a national IV would probably work. I am here in Sterling Heights, MI (Detroit Metro Area) and I am willing to host people in my area It will be great if others in other cities can do that too. I am dre. ming, but think about it if this works. We can march to washigton again such large numbers that everyone will notice. I really think its time to get together and do something. Bouncing ideas on IV boards is great but lets meet and get to know each other and see if can talk about this problem face to face across the country. Thats what grassroot effort it!. If nothing, we will find new friends in each other. I hope to find that fire in us again and I thank you for reading my post!
tattoo really easy crossword puzzles
maxy
10-16 01:19 PM
sounds good...thanks
look at your labor app... it states your proffered wage, job description etc. those are the terms and conditions... you can still get an EVL from your employer and have your lawyer (or have yourself) write a letter explaining how the EVL covers terms and conditions on the labor cert. in any case, this is a really stupid and unenforceable rfe... i mean how can the new employer even know whats in the labor and i-140? and without knowing that how can an employer "indicate" any compliance with t&c of labor and 140? i think you should be fine with just a plain evl that matches your job description and salary... at most, you can write a letter saying that "yeah the t&c continues to be valid".
my 2 cents.
look at your labor app... it states your proffered wage, job description etc. those are the terms and conditions... you can still get an EVL from your employer and have your lawyer (or have yourself) write a letter explaining how the EVL covers terms and conditions on the labor cert. in any case, this is a really stupid and unenforceable rfe... i mean how can the new employer even know whats in the labor and i-140? and without knowing that how can an employer "indicate" any compliance with t&c of labor and 140? i think you should be fine with just a plain evl that matches your job description and salary... at most, you can write a letter saying that "yeah the t&c continues to be valid".
my 2 cents.
more...
pictures crossword puzzles for kids
Mumbai_girl
12-02 12:06 PM
Dear Friend:
I will also be going to the Kolkata Consulate to get my H1B stamped in May 2008 (HIB expires Aug 2008). Since getting an appointment at the US Consulate requires a prior payment of visa fees at a Consulate designated bank, I would apprecitae if you would let me know how this process works: I.e: (1) How to pay the visa application fee and the visa issuance fee at that bank; and (2) how to book an appointment at the Consulate at Kolkata. Thanks again.
This link should explain all your queries
http://www.vfs-usa.co.in
I will also be going to the Kolkata Consulate to get my H1B stamped in May 2008 (HIB expires Aug 2008). Since getting an appointment at the US Consulate requires a prior payment of visa fees at a Consulate designated bank, I would apprecitae if you would let me know how this process works: I.e: (1) How to pay the visa application fee and the visa issuance fee at that bank; and (2) how to book an appointment at the Consulate at Kolkata. Thanks again.
This link should explain all your queries
http://www.vfs-usa.co.in
dresses crossword puzzle. free
hemasar
06-22 09:38 AM
Due to time contraints doctor sent me for a chest x-ray and skipped the TB skin test. Chest x-ray came back negative. Question: Is a TB skin test required if a chest x-ray is negative? No remarks were made as to why TB skin test was not given. Should suggest, to a reasonable person, that no active TB is present
My colleague told me that he took only chest X-ray and not done skin test he got his GC.
My colleague told me that he took only chest X-ray and not done skin test he got his GC.
more...
makeup crossword puzzles free
immi2006
05-04 09:48 AM
Yesterday AC 360 interviewed Senator Corny, and others including Laura Bush, all of them mentioned how upset they were to see Mex Flags, Spanish version of national anthem, and more importantly, disrespecting US laws and waving foreign flag.
THey mentioned that it may not before September any decsion on CIR is made, one of them said he is doubtful anything will pass this year at all on Immi reforms. Laura was highly sympatheitc for legal immigrants and their wait in line and she said legal immigrants will be the first preference.
I guess, the Immi Debate is basically divert people attention on IRAQ, Rising GAS Prices, Low Bush Ratings... and Democrats want to churn it to their advantage.
I am not sure if any of you are watching AC 360 at all... it was there last night around 9.30 Pacific time.
THey mentioned that it may not before September any decsion on CIR is made, one of them said he is doubtful anything will pass this year at all on Immi reforms. Laura was highly sympatheitc for legal immigrants and their wait in line and she said legal immigrants will be the first preference.
I guess, the Immi Debate is basically divert people attention on IRAQ, Rising GAS Prices, Low Bush Ratings... and Democrats want to churn it to their advantage.
I am not sure if any of you are watching AC 360 at all... it was there last night around 9.30 Pacific time.
girlfriend page 3 « free crosswords
Sath thesmilingstar
02-25 08:10 PM
I understand your mother filed for I-140, but did she also file your I-485 and advance parole? If so, as soon as you get your AP, leave the country and return..as a Parolee. Then apply for FAFSA..
so does this mean that i cannot apply with my is i-140 pending..??
so does this mean that i cannot apply with my is i-140 pending..??
hairstyles free basic+shapes printables
MahaBharatGC
10-13 11:45 AM
But ksircar, instead of accepting can't we raise red flags to USCIS?
This is going to be an issue for lot of folks who all filed for I-485 in the last year July fiasco. We will be forced renew every time. Only by giving 2 years is just a temporary postponement but not solving the real problem.
It is like Drivers Lincense renewal. If you have your documentation and you have been driving legally should be granted renewal instantly. Why can't they do the same thing with EAD?
This is going to be an issue for lot of folks who all filed for I-485 in the last year July fiasco. We will be forced renew every time. Only by giving 2 years is just a temporary postponement but not solving the real problem.
It is like Drivers Lincense renewal. If you have your documentation and you have been driving legally should be granted renewal instantly. Why can't they do the same thing with EAD?
kaisersose
07-27 07:47 PM
Is your question about Approved 140 or Pending 140.
I am also curious to know.
As far as I know, employer has to just send a letter to USCIS with the 140 receipt number which states that they want to revoke it and USCIS will locate the file with 485 and revoke it too.
Bad but what can we do ???????
Why would your employer do that unless you did something inappropriate?
As long as the employee does not not step out of line. He has nothing to worry. In this case, the only problem is layoffs for unavoidable reasons in which case it is not the employee's fault. In such situations, the employer will not revoke the 140.
I am also curious to know.
As far as I know, employer has to just send a letter to USCIS with the 140 receipt number which states that they want to revoke it and USCIS will locate the file with 485 and revoke it too.
Bad but what can we do ???????
Why would your employer do that unless you did something inappropriate?
As long as the employee does not not step out of line. He has nothing to worry. In this case, the only problem is layoffs for unavoidable reasons in which case it is not the employee's fault. In such situations, the employer will not revoke the 140.
stemcell
09-27 12:18 PM
Thanks for the honest and to-the-point answer Yagw. Yes, I am aware of the risks involved and therefore never EVER exceed the threshold I set for myself. I am not new to stock market having been in it for the past four years -- not that that makes me ANY safer than a newbie though.
Appreciate your advise of caution, will definitely keep that in mind.
Thanks!
Any tips as to how you pick a stock would be welcome.
Mostly for day trading do you do any technical analysis or is it mostly intuition?
BTW you can day trade, it should not matter your H1B status as some one else duly pointed out.
Appreciate your advise of caution, will definitely keep that in mind.
Thanks!
Any tips as to how you pick a stock would be welcome.
Mostly for day trading do you do any technical analysis or is it mostly intuition?
BTW you can day trade, it should not matter your H1B status as some one else duly pointed out.
No comments:
Post a Comment