kumar1
12-05 10:58 AM
Please do not post news from timesofindia.com over here! This is not a mirror image site of TOI. Besides, timesofindia.com is good for nothing anyway.
They put H1-B/Green Card rumors left and right on the front page. It is propaganda to get more hits and that is where it ends. Thank you.
They put H1-B/Green Card rumors left and right on the front page. It is propaganda to get more hits and that is where it ends. Thank you.
wallpaper 1977 ad Cerwin Vega Bass Amp Earthquake Speakers. specify your order
mugwump
12-07 04:41 PM
I was worried because in the application, the admissions advisor was asking em to fill SSN & Visa status information. I was a bit worried to give that information if that is going to be voilated in any way.
You will be fine, i am on H1 and doing my MS part time!!
You will be fine, i am on H1 and doing my MS part time!!
mrane1
09-27 05:48 PM
I am a Master's student and had applied for H1B through a consultant under master quota 2007. I was devastated when the consultant told me today that my H1B was not approved. When i checked online with my WAC no, as expected it said that a decision was mailed to the employer which in most cases means H1B denied.
I have OPT left until dec 07. I haven't yet found a job while on OPT but have been applying for jobs rigorously. I was really banking on the H1B visa for getting a job and then transferring it over to whoever hires me.
With my H1B not approved, I am totally clueless now. Please advice if my H1B application can be reconsidered/re-appealed/ resubmitted. Any other options/suggestions welcome.
Apart from all the above solutions there is one more.. I have a friend who was in similar situation.. she didnt make the h1b visa lottery... Her OPT expires in January... So she took admission in MBA and will apply for CPT in Jan... Also she has graduated now... so next year she can apply through MS quota. The good thing is that she has a FT job in a start up and her compnay assisting her in every way...
I have OPT left until dec 07. I haven't yet found a job while on OPT but have been applying for jobs rigorously. I was really banking on the H1B visa for getting a job and then transferring it over to whoever hires me.
With my H1B not approved, I am totally clueless now. Please advice if my H1B application can be reconsidered/re-appealed/ resubmitted. Any other options/suggestions welcome.
Apart from all the above solutions there is one more.. I have a friend who was in similar situation.. she didnt make the h1b visa lottery... Her OPT expires in January... So she took admission in MBA and will apply for CPT in Jan... Also she has graduated now... so next year she can apply through MS quota. The good thing is that she has a FT job in a start up and her compnay assisting her in every way...
2011 Cerwin Vega JE 36CX 18 inch
rajs
04-04 03:43 PM
my case is pending from 2004
visa numbers for PD are current but still no action on my case
i dint even get a reply for the enquire i made in Jan 2009
so for me its like a showoff story by USCIS :confused:
visa numbers for PD are current but still no action on my case
i dint even get a reply for the enquire i made in Jan 2009
so for me its like a showoff story by USCIS :confused:
more...
ilikekilo
07-17 02:02 PM
DOS and USCIS are slow. But it would be really helpful if the IV code team can provide some update on our site. I believe over 2.5 hours have passed since the last update regarding some update in 1 hour. I guess we can't do anything if it takes more time but an update always helps! Thank you.
given that u have just joined the group, let me say welcome aboard...
u made a wise decision to join this effort.. however regretfully I beg to defer , for you to be too quick to ask questions or updates and be more patient..
please aks yourself..what did u do for IV....what can u expect...
if u are a very active member and did contribute to IV, please accept my apologies
given that u have just joined the group, let me say welcome aboard...
u made a wise decision to join this effort.. however regretfully I beg to defer , for you to be too quick to ask questions or updates and be more patient..
please aks yourself..what did u do for IV....what can u expect...
if u are a very active member and did contribute to IV, please accept my apologies
factoryman
02-08 05:31 PM
till Sept 2007. This is as read on another board.
more...
smartboy75
07-09 11:00 AM
Source www.immigration-law.com
07/09/2008: USCIS Biometric Changes For Re-Entry Permits and Refugee Travel Documents 07/08/2008
USCIS has issued revised instructions for USCIS Form I-131, Application for Travel Document. The instructions include changes effective March 5, 2008 that require applicants for re-entry permits and refugee travel documents to provide biometrics (e.g., fingerprints and photographs) at a USCIS Application Support Center (ASC) for background and security checks and to meet requirements for secure travel and entry documents containing biometric identifiers.
Q. May an I-131 applicant for a re-entry permit or refugee travel document complete biometrics outside of the United States?
A. Form I-131 instructions provide guidance for certain persons who are abroad at the time of filing to visit a U.S. Embassy or consulate for fingerprinting, although all applicants are urged to file before leaving the United States. Since certain overseas offices have the discretion to accept and adjudicate applications for refugee travel documents, although it is not mandatory that they do so, an applicant for a refugee travel document may complete biometrics outside of the United States, but is encouraged to wait to travel until his or her biometrics have been collected and the document delivered. As discussed earlier, certain overseas USCIS offices may, in their discretion, adjudicate Form I-131 filed for a refugee travel document (but not re-entry permits), where the applicant has failed to apply while in the U.S. (see 8 C.F.R. � 223.2(b)(2)(ii)). However, applicants for refugee travel documents should not count on the overseas offices necessarily agreeing to adjudicate Form I-131 in all cases, particularly where it is evident that the individual could have applied while in the U.S. and attended his or her biometrics appointment. Applicants for reentry permits should attend their biometric appointment at the designated ASC. If the applicant departs the United States before the biometrics are collected, the application may be denied.
Q. Will Form I-131 re-entry permit or refugee travel document be denied if the applicant leaves the U.S. after the application has been filed and receipted but before biometrics are completed?
A. Form I-131 form instructions state, �Departure from the United States before a decision is made on an application for a Re-entry Permit usually does not affect the application. However, where biometric collection is required and the applicant departs the United States before the biometrics are collected, the application may be denied.� Travel is not advisable. If an applicant leaves and comes back, his or her application may be denied while abroad, and he or she may not be able to get back into the country. Even though an overseas USCIS office may, in its discretion, take the biometrics of an applicant for a refugee travel document, there is no guarantee that the office will necessarily exercise its discretion to do so. Therefore, USCIS again urges all I-131 applicants for whom biometrics will be required to file their applications well in advance of their scheduled departure dates. USCIS suggests applicants apply for a travel document at least 60 days prior to the date of travel.
So if we efile EAD and then 2 months down the line efile AP, do we have to go twice for biometrics ???
07/09/2008: USCIS Biometric Changes For Re-Entry Permits and Refugee Travel Documents 07/08/2008
USCIS has issued revised instructions for USCIS Form I-131, Application for Travel Document. The instructions include changes effective March 5, 2008 that require applicants for re-entry permits and refugee travel documents to provide biometrics (e.g., fingerprints and photographs) at a USCIS Application Support Center (ASC) for background and security checks and to meet requirements for secure travel and entry documents containing biometric identifiers.
Q. May an I-131 applicant for a re-entry permit or refugee travel document complete biometrics outside of the United States?
A. Form I-131 instructions provide guidance for certain persons who are abroad at the time of filing to visit a U.S. Embassy or consulate for fingerprinting, although all applicants are urged to file before leaving the United States. Since certain overseas offices have the discretion to accept and adjudicate applications for refugee travel documents, although it is not mandatory that they do so, an applicant for a refugee travel document may complete biometrics outside of the United States, but is encouraged to wait to travel until his or her biometrics have been collected and the document delivered. As discussed earlier, certain overseas USCIS offices may, in their discretion, adjudicate Form I-131 filed for a refugee travel document (but not re-entry permits), where the applicant has failed to apply while in the U.S. (see 8 C.F.R. � 223.2(b)(2)(ii)). However, applicants for refugee travel documents should not count on the overseas offices necessarily agreeing to adjudicate Form I-131 in all cases, particularly where it is evident that the individual could have applied while in the U.S. and attended his or her biometrics appointment. Applicants for reentry permits should attend their biometric appointment at the designated ASC. If the applicant departs the United States before the biometrics are collected, the application may be denied.
Q. Will Form I-131 re-entry permit or refugee travel document be denied if the applicant leaves the U.S. after the application has been filed and receipted but before biometrics are completed?
A. Form I-131 form instructions state, �Departure from the United States before a decision is made on an application for a Re-entry Permit usually does not affect the application. However, where biometric collection is required and the applicant departs the United States before the biometrics are collected, the application may be denied.� Travel is not advisable. If an applicant leaves and comes back, his or her application may be denied while abroad, and he or she may not be able to get back into the country. Even though an overseas USCIS office may, in its discretion, take the biometrics of an applicant for a refugee travel document, there is no guarantee that the office will necessarily exercise its discretion to do so. Therefore, USCIS again urges all I-131 applicants for whom biometrics will be required to file their applications well in advance of their scheduled departure dates. USCIS suggests applicants apply for a travel document at least 60 days prior to the date of travel.
So if we efile EAD and then 2 months down the line efile AP, do we have to go twice for biometrics ???
2010 CERWIN-VEGA EL-36 Earthquake:
ItIsNotFunny
10-13 03:25 PM
Doesn't matter casuals or formals.
Casuals - most of the IOs don't mind.
Formal - everyone likes it. I would rather go for formal to be on safe side.
Casuals - most of the IOs don't mind.
Formal - everyone likes it. I would rather go for formal to be on safe side.
more...
americandesi
08-31 01:42 PM
OK so we're 1 million in the backlog. That could be a small country.
Instead of spending hundreds of thousands on lobbying, we can just buy a piece of land somewhere (big enough to have a passport office building), get immediate citizenship in our new country and then USCIS will be able to process our GC applications within a year.
Someone from Taiwan (and smaller neighboring countries) can get GC in 1 year but if you're from China you will wait 6-10 years. I am not sure of how much cultural differences exist between these two countries, all I know is that my Taiwanese friend speaks Chinese, goes to Chinese church. So much for diversity.
So.. if anyone has the info on how to register a new country, I'd like to know.
Sorry, its the wee hours and I just felt like posting this. Please close thread as and when desired.
Sidenote: Hear IV Rally announcement on Dallas Radio www.funasia.net (http://www.funasia.net) in the following slots (Central Time)
8/31:7.45am & 6pm;
9/3: 9.25am & 6pm;
9/4: 7.45am & 6pm;
9/5: 9.25am & 6pm;
9/6: 7.45am & 6pm;
9/7: 9.25am & 6pm;
9/10: 9.25am & 6pm;
9/11: 7.45am & 6pm;
Also live discussion for few minutes about IV Rally on Saturday during immigration show at 3pm central
Sponsored by members of TX chapter of IV (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/texasiv) &
the Law offices of Sherin Thawer http://www.thawerlaw.com and TX chapter of IV
Wanna know the fastest way to get a GC with no strings attached?. Apply in EB1 under "Foreign nationals that are managers and executives subject to international transfer to the United States". Here are the steps
1) Work as a Manager/CEO/CFO in India (or) any other country for 2 years with a company that has a branch in US.
2) Get tranferred to US branch of the company with the same designation and command a salary matching the prevailing wage for Manager/CEO/CFO at that location.
3) You are all set to apply in EB1.
Instead of spending hundreds of thousands on lobbying, we can just buy a piece of land somewhere (big enough to have a passport office building), get immediate citizenship in our new country and then USCIS will be able to process our GC applications within a year.
Someone from Taiwan (and smaller neighboring countries) can get GC in 1 year but if you're from China you will wait 6-10 years. I am not sure of how much cultural differences exist between these two countries, all I know is that my Taiwanese friend speaks Chinese, goes to Chinese church. So much for diversity.
So.. if anyone has the info on how to register a new country, I'd like to know.
Sorry, its the wee hours and I just felt like posting this. Please close thread as and when desired.
Sidenote: Hear IV Rally announcement on Dallas Radio www.funasia.net (http://www.funasia.net) in the following slots (Central Time)
8/31:7.45am & 6pm;
9/3: 9.25am & 6pm;
9/4: 7.45am & 6pm;
9/5: 9.25am & 6pm;
9/6: 7.45am & 6pm;
9/7: 9.25am & 6pm;
9/10: 9.25am & 6pm;
9/11: 7.45am & 6pm;
Also live discussion for few minutes about IV Rally on Saturday during immigration show at 3pm central
Sponsored by members of TX chapter of IV (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/texasiv) &
the Law offices of Sherin Thawer http://www.thawerlaw.com and TX chapter of IV
Wanna know the fastest way to get a GC with no strings attached?. Apply in EB1 under "Foreign nationals that are managers and executives subject to international transfer to the United States". Here are the steps
1) Work as a Manager/CEO/CFO in India (or) any other country for 2 years with a company that has a branch in US.
2) Get tranferred to US branch of the company with the same designation and command a salary matching the prevailing wage for Manager/CEO/CFO at that location.
3) You are all set to apply in EB1.
hair Cerwin Vega Stokers dvc
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...
GotFreedom?
07-22 05:38 PM
Hi guys,
I bet this question must have been asked before but I couldn't find the relevant thread so I'm asking again. Apologies if its a repeat.
I am maintaining my H1-B while my AOS is pending. Last year my wife went to India while she had valid H4 (not stamped in passport) and AP documents. She did not get her visa stamped and reentered the country using the AP with no issues. He I-94 said Parolled till Some date, March 2009. I totally forgot about it and never renewed her AP or mine. Does it pose any kind of threat to her legal status in the US and AOS?
I am still working on H1 and she is a parolee.
Thanks in advance fopr the responses.
I bet this question must have been asked before but I couldn't find the relevant thread so I'm asking again. Apologies if its a repeat.
I am maintaining my H1-B while my AOS is pending. Last year my wife went to India while she had valid H4 (not stamped in passport) and AP documents. She did not get her visa stamped and reentered the country using the AP with no issues. He I-94 said Parolled till Some date, March 2009. I totally forgot about it and never renewed her AP or mine. Does it pose any kind of threat to her legal status in the US and AOS?
I am still working on H1 and she is a parolee.
Thanks in advance fopr the responses.
hot of cerwin vega speakers.
lkapildev
11-13 06:53 PM
It could be a GC. I'm guessing.. My friend also had got the same information today. He was BD national
Some keywords from his receipt# is
It says some package is mailed. Weclome .. Permanant residence etc
and ADIT processing etc.
Do you see these buzz words.
You may cheer up today and buy us a dinner. No buy the person who approved your case a dinner.
They flushed my application toilet. I need to go to India urgently, no AP no news.
Some keywords from his receipt# is
It says some package is mailed. Weclome .. Permanant residence etc
and ADIT processing etc.
Do you see these buzz words.
You may cheer up today and buy us a dinner. No buy the person who approved your case a dinner.
They flushed my application toilet. I need to go to India urgently, no AP no news.
more...
house cerwin vega earthquake sub
sree_99
02-01 08:09 PM
She is not using her EAD, She is enrolled fulltime in school.
tattoo A Cerwin-Vega “A-3000I”.
dbevis
May 23rd, 2005, 05:43 AM
Of the 3 the first one is my pick. Nature has little regard for keeping things level and plumb, so the shot has a slightly tilted feel to it. On the second one, it feels a bit cramped and probably would have benefitted by a bit more of the sky - perhaps by shooting from a lower angle.
more...
pictures PEAVEY SP4G, CERWIN VEGA SL-36
ksita48
07-24 10:53 AM
BOLTI BUND (MAY BE IT IS AN EB3 ISSUE???).
Surprised to see NO comments from any corner (EB's, Admins Legals or even Illegals).
Also NO reply from the "thebestoptimizer@gmail.com" to my personal mail sent Yesterday.
Surprised to see NO comments from any corner (EB's, Admins Legals or even Illegals).
Also NO reply from the "thebestoptimizer@gmail.com" to my personal mail sent Yesterday.
dresses been one of Cerwin-Vega#39;s
good idea
09-13 07:59 PM
Common guys we need to make some thing better for EB3 folks.
I can feel optimism in your message but the reality is only (better) change (from candidate prospective) in rules can make things better...
I can feel optimism in your message but the reality is only (better) change (from candidate prospective) in rules can make things better...
more...
makeup Cerwin vega JE36C Junior
roseball
04-04 03:25 PM
Good find...Something is happening...So GCs for most of us soon without the need for any visa number availability rule? One can only wait N watch...
Nothing to get excited about. As far as I know, USCIS definition of backlog does not include cases waiting for visa number availability...But surely, this will be a great relief for people whose dates have been current for a long time but for some reason USCIS has put their cases under admin processing...
Nothing to get excited about. As far as I know, USCIS definition of backlog does not include cases waiting for visa number availability...But surely, this will be a great relief for people whose dates have been current for a long time but for some reason USCIS has put their cases under admin processing...
girlfriend Cerwin Vega STROKER STKR124
cooldesi
01-24 11:47 PM
Your employer can file a new H1B extension petition with the documents covering the problems that caused the first denial. Now the lawyer should attach a letter notifying USCIS about the the first denial and than asking them for adjustment of status.
There is no annual cap. (or may be 300,00) on H1b extension cases. Hence in your case irrespective of your denial, you can file fresh extension one more time & making sure that you are not missing anything and a letter to USCIS mentioning your previous denial case.
I am telling you this on my own experience. And mind you this is not a time for you to be cheap. Please consult with a good lawyer.
I agree and my experience suggests that it's always better to file fresh application than mtr. this is just my personal opinion.
There is no annual cap. (or may be 300,00) on H1b extension cases. Hence in your case irrespective of your denial, you can file fresh extension one more time & making sure that you are not missing anything and a letter to USCIS mentioning your previous denial case.
I am telling you this on my own experience. And mind you this is not a time for you to be cheap. Please consult with a good lawyer.
I agree and my experience suggests that it's always better to file fresh application than mtr. this is just my personal opinion.
hairstyles Cerwin Vega Stroker 1000.1 amp
apahilaj
07-19 07:11 AM
Hi Seahawks,
I had a question regarding your post - you mentioned that if you are filing with your spouse, there's another form you have to file. I filed along with my spouse and I did not have to fill out any special form; my attorney did not ask for any special form for my spouse and neither did he ask for my tax information.
Can you please provide details of this form you are talking about? My application has already reached USCIS in the begining of July.
Am I expecting an RFE on it? Thanks.
I had a question regarding your post - you mentioned that if you are filing with your spouse, there's another form you have to file. I filed along with my spouse and I did not have to fill out any special form; my attorney did not ask for any special form for my spouse and neither did he ask for my tax information.
Can you please provide details of this form you are talking about? My application has already reached USCIS in the begining of July.
Am I expecting an RFE on it? Thanks.
rsdang1
06-24 03:47 PM
I understand where you are coming from but more awareness and publicity will only help and hopefully drive action...
Go Mayor Go... get us CIR...:D
Go Mayor Go... get us CIR...:D
drirshad
04-20 02:59 AM
http://hammondlawgroup.blogspot.com/
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Crystal ball gazing ........
Everyone wants us to put on our genie�s hat, gaze into our crystal ball, and try to predict what is going to happen in the next few months. So here it goes �
Congress is set to debate CIR in May. HLG thinks that there is a reasonable chance that one house of Congress passes CIR in the May/June time frame. And that the other house of Congress passes another CIR in June/July. With some negotiation, a compromise CIR bill could be on the president�s desk by the middle of the summer � say July.
In addition, we are also actively courting the bridge legislation that we�ve mentioned many times. HLG was privy to a meeting that took place just this week with a senior staffer in an important Senator�s office. The challenge here is to find the right must-pass legislation that can serve as a host.
Putting this all together HLG is slightly raising our latest estimate. We�re willing to print that there is a 60% chance that either CIR or Bridge legislation is passed and signed by the President by August 1. Whenever a bill is passed it will likley take an additional 30-60 days before the first visas are issued.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Crystal ball gazing ........
Everyone wants us to put on our genie�s hat, gaze into our crystal ball, and try to predict what is going to happen in the next few months. So here it goes �
Congress is set to debate CIR in May. HLG thinks that there is a reasonable chance that one house of Congress passes CIR in the May/June time frame. And that the other house of Congress passes another CIR in June/July. With some negotiation, a compromise CIR bill could be on the president�s desk by the middle of the summer � say July.
In addition, we are also actively courting the bridge legislation that we�ve mentioned many times. HLG was privy to a meeting that took place just this week with a senior staffer in an important Senator�s office. The challenge here is to find the right must-pass legislation that can serve as a host.
Putting this all together HLG is slightly raising our latest estimate. We�re willing to print that there is a 60% chance that either CIR or Bridge legislation is passed and signed by the President by August 1. Whenever a bill is passed it will likley take an additional 30-60 days before the first visas are issued.
No comments:
Post a Comment