freetospeak
07-18 07:17 PM
Even my case is similar. I requested my attorney to file my EAD and AP along with I-485 at the same time. But they did not apply for EAD and AP and but instead just filed I-485. Now they are saying they can't file for my EAD and AP until they get the I-485 receipt notice. What a mess??? Now I've pay lots of amount for EAD and AP. By the way my attroney is Murthy Law Firm. I bet yours would be the same
wallpaper Jay-z - Black Album LP
paskal
12-27 04:43 PM
follow up call today
details are the SAME
10pm cst
we will try to keep to the point and keep it short
please attend
details are the SAME
10pm cst
we will try to keep to the point and keep it short
please attend
reddy_h
08-14 04:04 PM
Just now my lawyer called to tell that she got all my receipts , filed on july 2nd but my wifes application was rejected for "insufficient filing fees", I had put in a single check for $745 , how can this be, it was both in the same fedex packet, she says it is some "mailroom error", so she sent back the application with a letter and my receipt copy to accept. My app also had a $745 check and that was receipted,
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
I am really sorry for you, buddy. This is a stupid mistake by USCIS. Atleast they rejected your wife's application before Aug 17th so now you can refile. But I would advise you to send separate checks now. Even if EAD or AP applications are not properly filed, they will atleast accept I-485 if you send separate checks.
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
I am really sorry for you, buddy. This is a stupid mistake by USCIS. Atleast they rejected your wife's application before Aug 17th so now you can refile. But I would advise you to send separate checks now. Even if EAD or AP applications are not properly filed, they will atleast accept I-485 if you send separate checks.
2011 Jay Z - The Black Album
makemygc
01-07 06:59 PM
I had the same scenario and got my EAD renewed using the new passport number without any issues. What USCIS is mainly concerned about is your A# that you fill up in your EAD form.
Thx
MakeMyGC
I would like to know the answer to this question too. does anybody know?
also pkv..how many days did it take you to get the new passport?
Thx
MakeMyGC
I would like to know the answer to this question too. does anybody know?
also pkv..how many days did it take you to get the new passport?
more...
sanju_eb3
02-26 09:33 AM
If I were you, I would take start with something "less technical" in the IT field like testing. You can learn a tool or two (example: Mercury, Rational etc) and basic methodology about planning, executing and monitoring testing. You have your background in HR and can use your functional skills to add value to any HR enterprise implementation.
You can then move to more technical side of the IT fields with configuration of any of the major enterprise tools like others have suggested - Peoplesoft, SAP etc.
You can then move to more technical side of the IT fields with configuration of any of the major enterprise tools like others have suggested - Peoplesoft, SAP etc.
Ann Ruben
03-08 07:10 AM
Hi Prem,
Your sister will certainly be subject to greater scrutiny if she returns immediately to the US after an extended stay. Whether she is is ultimately admitted to the US or denied admission and sent back home really depends on several factors. First, can your sister persuasively demonstrate that she has strong ties to her home in India, to which she intends to return at the conclusion of her business trip? Next, can she document that she will be engaged in permissible B-1 activities of limited duration? And finally, on what side of the bed did the CBE officer wake up?
Your sister will certainly be subject to greater scrutiny if she returns immediately to the US after an extended stay. Whether she is is ultimately admitted to the US or denied admission and sent back home really depends on several factors. First, can your sister persuasively demonstrate that she has strong ties to her home in India, to which she intends to return at the conclusion of her business trip? Next, can she document that she will be engaged in permissible B-1 activities of limited duration? And finally, on what side of the bed did the CBE officer wake up?
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
2010 Jay Z - The Black Album (2010)
b2visahelp
07-09 03:34 PM
My parents went to request for visitor visa for a second time. They got rejected again. This time only my parents applied, without my brothers. They showed the VO a letter stating reasons why they won't immigrate to the US (have 3 sons in Indonesia, taking care of elderly parent and have business & properties in Indonesia). The letter also stated that parents only want a short duration visa just to attend my wedding. All questions VO asked was about me, that I got asylum and didn't come back. Now I really don't know what to do. Should I include a notarized letter from me stating that I will make sure my parents go back to Indonesia within the allowed time? My parents don't have the intention to immigrate but I don't know how they can convince the VO.
I would really appreciate your advice. Thank you so much!
I would really appreciate your advice. Thank you so much!
more...
Ramba
12-22 07:13 PM
If a person has filed I-485 at least 6 months back and got laid off from job,
How much time does the rule permit to find another similar job and use AC 21.
Is this similar to H1B grace period or say no grace period.
thanks
Unlike H1B, at the time of layoff, if 485 is pending more than 6 months, you are still in legal status, (in h1b case there is no grace period). There is no time limit to find a similar job. You can stay at home for till your 485 approval, with legal status. Having said that, if INS asks for a eveidence of full time-permanat job you should be in a postion to show the job offer. In simple terms, tou should have a vaild job offer at the time of approval of your 485.
How much time does the rule permit to find another similar job and use AC 21.
Is this similar to H1B grace period or say no grace period.
thanks
Unlike H1B, at the time of layoff, if 485 is pending more than 6 months, you are still in legal status, (in h1b case there is no grace period). There is no time limit to find a similar job. You can stay at home for till your 485 approval, with legal status. Having said that, if INS asks for a eveidence of full time-permanat job you should be in a postion to show the job offer. In simple terms, tou should have a vaild job offer at the time of approval of your 485.
hair also be heavy on the Jay-Z
gxr
10-01 03:29 PM
Anyone with Oct 06 or earlier RD still waiting for I-140 approval?
more...
abe1
01-06 09:18 AM
I understand that this bill many not pass or even move any forward. I thought two senior senators from both parties showing interest in this topic is a great opportunity for IV to present our case in a different light. We have been clamoring about the difficulties we are facing because of the present delay in green card processing. Unfortunately this is only our problem and no one else really has to be bothered about it. If we present our case in a mutually beneficial point of view perhaps some of the politicians will have little more interest in our situation. Remember JFK�s famous words��Ask not what the country can do for you�.� If we write to Senators Kerry and Lugar now, even if the bill does not pass, they will consider our situation slightly differently next time CIR or another immigration bill is introduced in the congress. I think IV ought to present our case in all different angles possible rather than the one way approach of expecting mercy in our situation. Most importantly, I think the premise of the proposed Kerry/Lugar bill is very much applicable the folks in IV. Aren�t many people in this forum waiting for an opportunity to do some business on their own? That is how new immigrants in America have always been. We shouldn�t be any different. I am sure we cannot bring in the capital that senators are looking for. But why don�t they view us slightly differently?
hot Jay-Z - Black Album
sbvw76
04-21 03:13 PM
depends on whether you are on L1B or L1A. On L1A - i have seen many GCs getting approved (from 140 filing to GC in hand) in 6 months or less.
of course - your lawyer and/or employer needs to ascertain whether your role here and also in the country where you were employed by same employer qualifies you for EB1C filing or not.......
Of course, this is not legal advice but only anecdotal experience
If you are in L1A, your company can file in EB1 which is current for all countries. If you are in L1B, then go for H1B. Because Only H1B can be extended beyond 6 years.
of course - your lawyer and/or employer needs to ascertain whether your role here and also in the country where you were employed by same employer qualifies you for EB1C filing or not.......
Of course, this is not legal advice but only anecdotal experience
If you are in L1A, your company can file in EB1 which is current for all countries. If you are in L1B, then go for H1B. Because Only H1B can be extended beyond 6 years.
more...
house quot;The Purple Albumquot;(Jay-Z
cahaba
04-13 04:22 PM
Any ideas guys on legal ways to tacke this situation? This is extremely urgent. Pl let know if you have any comments.
tattoo Tags: lack, album, jay, z
brb2
08-10 11:28 AM
I have copied the information from the link below. It clearly states DOS checks background overseas and DHS ensures the person entering is the same person who was issued the Visa. So, my point is that DHS is only responsible for conducting background checks for EB/N400 applicants only. Anyway we will know later today. Hopefully something good news after the chaos in the stock market:)
"In many cases, US-VISIT begins overseas, at the U.S. consular offices issuing visas, where visitors� biometrics (digital fingerscans and photographs) are collected and checked against a database of known criminals and suspected terrorists. When the visitor arrives at the port of entry, we use the same biometrics � digital fingerscans � to verify the person at our port is the same person who received the visa."
Isnt this already in place in the form of US Visit (http://www.dhs.gov/xtrvlsec/programs/editorial_0525.shtm)
"In many cases, US-VISIT begins overseas, at the U.S. consular offices issuing visas, where visitors� biometrics (digital fingerscans and photographs) are collected and checked against a database of known criminals and suspected terrorists. When the visitor arrives at the port of entry, we use the same biometrics � digital fingerscans � to verify the person at our port is the same person who received the visa."
Isnt this already in place in the form of US Visit (http://www.dhs.gov/xtrvlsec/programs/editorial_0525.shtm)
more...
pictures Buy Jay-Z Album @
Templarian
11-25 04:12 PM
@TheCanadian, glos is a cunning one. :look:
Star...wha??? I just thought it looked cool :P
:lol: :fab:
Star...wha??? I just thought it looked cool :P
:lol: :fab:
dresses Jay-Z The Black Album
drirshad
08-08 11:16 AM
how much is 40 credits ...........
more...
makeup Jay-Z - The Black Album (2003)
abracadabra102
03-17 01:27 PM
no offense but the above doesn't make any sense what so ever, so does majority of your posts.
and stop pretending to be a guru on immigration issues and leave the analysis part to the real experts.
Peace :)
LOL. You are spot on.
and stop pretending to be a guru on immigration issues and leave the analysis part to the real experts.
Peace :)
LOL. You are spot on.
girlfriend Black Album jay z
permfiling
12-22 09:56 AM
Non production of green cards needs to be taken up IV as a action item with USCIS
hairstyles Jay-Z - The Black Album
abhijitp
01-25 04:59 PM
I live and take bart from fremont. let us know time and day or days of this event. I will plan to stop by or stop for hours to help IV friends.
THAT is the spirit, thank you my friend!
The drive will happen on
all weekday evenings (5pm - 7pm)
between
Tuesday 1/29/2008- Friday 2/8/2008
Are you a part of the NorCal yahoogroup?
Thanks again!
THAT is the spirit, thank you my friend!
The drive will happen on
all weekday evenings (5pm - 7pm)
between
Tuesday 1/29/2008- Friday 2/8/2008
Are you a part of the NorCal yahoogroup?
Thanks again!
ivgclive
07-25 10:00 AM
Wait a minute....
So, it does not matter whether you have GC or not,
Dealing with USCIS and paying lawyers are part of rest of your life....
So, it does not matter whether you have GC or not,
Dealing with USCIS and paying lawyers are part of rest of your life....
lazycis
05-01 12:52 PM
If I-485 is still pending, you can try to use AC21 and port old I-140 to new employer. Nothing to lose, a lot to gain if it works out. AC21 is not clearly defined and it's not codified in regulations so you have a good chance to prevail. The only problem I see is that the old employer no longer exists. Termination of the employer's business is one of the reasons for automatic revocation of I-140 (see 8 CFR 205.1(a)(iii)(D)). However if old employer was simply merged into another company, you can argue that business was not terminated.
No comments:
Post a Comment