Macaca
01-12 05:37 PM
I will be happy with the following requirement (that is lower then the carpet).
Don't have to mantain status. That is, absence of pay checks is not required.
Don't have to mantain status. That is, absence of pay checks is not required.
wallpaper Jersey Shore S01E06 Boardwalk
InTheMoment
08-05 11:31 AM
Why partial, If I were you I would have asked for a full refund !
$1,290 is no small amount given for absolutely nothing in return...I would done everything to get that back and given it to a suitable charity, which is the true giving: something just for the sake of giving for the betterment of the world.
I've applied for EAD/AP renewal for both myself and my wife. I spent $1,290 for this.
Say I got my GC approved and then I call USCIS and withdraw my pending EAD/AP application. Will I get a refund for pending EAD/AP application, if I get my GC approved before EAD/AP approval?
Thanks,
India EB2; PD - Nov 05
I-140 - Filed Mar '06; Approved Jun '06
I-485 - Reached NSC July 26'07;
$1,290 is no small amount given for absolutely nothing in return...I would done everything to get that back and given it to a suitable charity, which is the true giving: something just for the sake of giving for the betterment of the world.
I've applied for EAD/AP renewal for both myself and my wife. I spent $1,290 for this.
Say I got my GC approved and then I call USCIS and withdraw my pending EAD/AP application. Will I get a refund for pending EAD/AP application, if I get my GC approved before EAD/AP approval?
Thanks,
India EB2; PD - Nov 05
I-140 - Filed Mar '06; Approved Jun '06
I-485 - Reached NSC July 26'07;
another one
08-10 05:00 PM
and.... my Mustang can fly if i put it in the reverse gear
Guys,
I am happy to share with you all that I applied my 485 on 1 week of June and it got approved today.
My PD was dec 2005. eb3. India.
Thought i would share with you all.:)
Guys,
I am happy to share with you all that I applied my 485 on 1 week of June and it got approved today.
My PD was dec 2005. eb3. India.
Thought i would share with you all.:)
2011 Ronnie Ortiz-Magra
nat23
05-22 04:22 PM
If you have I140 cleared from company A you can use Priority date if you change Job and apply fresh GC from Company B in any catergory.
How will this change if the new legislation/amendment that are discussed passes.
Any ideas guys.
I would recommend you take up the new job and apply under the point based system. Right now they have 140K for EB categories and it will go down to 90K. So even if you keep your PD, you case will be retrogressed further.
How will this change if the new legislation/amendment that are discussed passes.
Any ideas guys.
I would recommend you take up the new job and apply under the point based system. Right now they have 140K for EB categories and it will go down to 90K. So even if you keep your PD, you case will be retrogressed further.
more...
lee.cook
January 30th, 2008, 01:03 PM
Hello,
What type of camera are you looking for?
Point-and-shoot or a dSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex).
The Sony Cybershoot is just your average P&S camera, small, light and compact.
A dSLR for example, like the Nikon D40 or the Canon EOS 350D are dSLR type and are much bigger in size but deliver alot higher quality images.
Nikon D40 http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/images/d40-right-950.jpg
Canon EOS 350D http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon350D/images/Canon350D_main.jpg
What is your price budget too?
What type of camera are you looking for?
Point-and-shoot or a dSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex).
The Sony Cybershoot is just your average P&S camera, small, light and compact.
A dSLR for example, like the Nikon D40 or the Canon EOS 350D are dSLR type and are much bigger in size but deliver alot higher quality images.
Nikon D40 http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/images/d40-right-950.jpg
Canon EOS 350D http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon350D/images/Canon350D_main.jpg
What is your price budget too?
ameryki
08-28 10:28 PM
Dude, if your profile is genuine, that does indicate something - my PD is also Nov. 2005, EB3-I. Both of us got 1 year EAD instead of 2.......hmm.....my attorney called USCIS and according to the attorney they (USCIS rep) couldn't tell them the reason for 1 year EAD.......asked me to do infopass!
trust me the ead situation is not consistent across the board. it is totally up to the IO assigned to the filing. but if you think its promising I truly hope you are right. do keep us posted if you find out more.
trust me the ead situation is not consistent across the board. it is totally up to the IO assigned to the filing. but if you think its promising I truly hope you are right. do keep us posted if you find out more.
more...
pal351
02-11 05:57 PM
http://www.prweb. com/releases/ 2009/02/prweb200 0494.htm
2010 Jersey Shore#39;s Ronnie, Vinny,
gcformeornot
12-31 01:54 PM
please help
more...
anzerraja
07-20 03:33 AM
Lately the members of IV have come to know that Aman Kapoor, the co-founder of IV has sold his house and spent around $64000/- towards the administrative costs of IV. This too was brought to our attention from a regular member like you and me, without which this would not have come to our knowledge at all.
So some of the members have taken an initiative to reimburse Aman and other core IV team members with the expenses they have incurred so far towards the administrative costs of IV. Note that the time they have spent and the sufferings cannot be compensated. Let us do the least by atleast compensating the money. Please do not donate directly to IV funds.
There is a funding drive in this other thread towards reimbursing the administrative costs of IV.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10708
Could you please pledge an amount ?
So some of the members have taken an initiative to reimburse Aman and other core IV team members with the expenses they have incurred so far towards the administrative costs of IV. Note that the time they have spent and the sufferings cannot be compensated. Let us do the least by atleast compensating the money. Please do not donate directly to IV funds.
There is a funding drive in this other thread towards reimbursing the administrative costs of IV.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10708
Could you please pledge an amount ?
hair Sammi Hits Ronnie
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
GCwaitforever
02-09 05:50 PM
If you could customize it to let people tell their own life stories, that would be great. I am mailing my letter tonight.
To
Mr. John Beverly
Director, Foreign Labor Certification Program
200 Constitution Ave NW, room C4312
Washington, DC 20210
Mr. Beverly,
[Block A: Filler] with model text by the side ....
[Model text:
I am a ------ in one of the Fortune --- companies, with expertise in ---- field. I have about --- years of experience in the ------- field. I came to USA in ---- on a --- Visa. I hold ------ degree in --- from a premier Institute. My employer applied for -----(RIR/non-RIR), ---- (EB*), permanent labor certification in ---from ----- state. It reached ------ regional office in ------. My case is shipped to ----- (Dallas/Philadelphia) Backlog Center later and it is waiting for adjudication for the past ----- (one year). I have been waiting to apply for the green card for almost ---- (one-to-five) years now.]
Block B:
Based on information received from friends who received approvals at BEC, I see that the processing at the Backlog Elimination Centers has several problems.
Dallas and Philadelphia follow different procedures (RIR versus TR, Regional versus SWA cases)
FIFO has not been implemented correctly, as promised at the beginning of setting up these centers. For example, Dallas is approving cases from late 2004, while Philadelphia is approving random cases from 2002; the very reason for the creation of the BECs was to implement true nationwide FIFO order for labor certifications.
There is a complete lack of transparency and answerability from a public agency like BEC.
The BECs refuse to disclose how many people work in adjudication, how many cases have been adjudicated so far, how many cases are pending data entry, why certain states have more cases processed than others in random order, etc�
The BECs refuse to implement a simple application on the internet where applicants could check their statuses online.
The BECs refuse to disclose any future timeline, keeping 350,000 people in the dark as to what to expect and how long to wait.
All I am expecting from the BECs is little bit of transparency and respect which I truly deserve. I really would like to know the happenings at BECs. I appreciate if you could answer these questions below.
Why FIFO has not been implemented?
How many people are working on adjudications?
What are the criteria for picking up a case for processing?
Why are there differences in procedures between Dallas and Philadelphia BECs?
How many cases have been adjudicated so far?
Block C:[Filler]
[Model Text: Lack of information, long wait and continued slump in the career are creating lot of stress in my life. I can not change jobs. Any information from you would go a long way in assuaging these worries.]
Respectfully,
------------------------------------------------
xxxx
To
Mr. John Beverly
Director, Foreign Labor Certification Program
200 Constitution Ave NW, room C4312
Washington, DC 20210
Mr. Beverly,
[Block A: Filler] with model text by the side ....
[Model text:
I am a ------ in one of the Fortune --- companies, with expertise in ---- field. I have about --- years of experience in the ------- field. I came to USA in ---- on a --- Visa. I hold ------ degree in --- from a premier Institute. My employer applied for -----(RIR/non-RIR), ---- (EB*), permanent labor certification in ---from ----- state. It reached ------ regional office in ------. My case is shipped to ----- (Dallas/Philadelphia) Backlog Center later and it is waiting for adjudication for the past ----- (one year). I have been waiting to apply for the green card for almost ---- (one-to-five) years now.]
Block B:
Based on information received from friends who received approvals at BEC, I see that the processing at the Backlog Elimination Centers has several problems.
Dallas and Philadelphia follow different procedures (RIR versus TR, Regional versus SWA cases)
FIFO has not been implemented correctly, as promised at the beginning of setting up these centers. For example, Dallas is approving cases from late 2004, while Philadelphia is approving random cases from 2002; the very reason for the creation of the BECs was to implement true nationwide FIFO order for labor certifications.
There is a complete lack of transparency and answerability from a public agency like BEC.
The BECs refuse to disclose how many people work in adjudication, how many cases have been adjudicated so far, how many cases are pending data entry, why certain states have more cases processed than others in random order, etc�
The BECs refuse to implement a simple application on the internet where applicants could check their statuses online.
The BECs refuse to disclose any future timeline, keeping 350,000 people in the dark as to what to expect and how long to wait.
All I am expecting from the BECs is little bit of transparency and respect which I truly deserve. I really would like to know the happenings at BECs. I appreciate if you could answer these questions below.
Why FIFO has not been implemented?
How many people are working on adjudications?
What are the criteria for picking up a case for processing?
Why are there differences in procedures between Dallas and Philadelphia BECs?
How many cases have been adjudicated so far?
Block C:[Filler]
[Model Text: Lack of information, long wait and continued slump in the career are creating lot of stress in my life. I can not change jobs. Any information from you would go a long way in assuaging these worries.]
Respectfully,
------------------------------------------------
xxxx
hot Jersey Shore S02E18 Drunk
MatsP
February 5th, 2008, 05:56 AM
Hey, I didn't know you've seen my cameras, Mats! ;)
Actually, I've seen my old EOS 1n, which was a bit beaten up when I bought it used several years ago - and it's no better after I have had it for a while. The 1-series bodies do tolerate quite a bit of abuse and still take good shots. I just wish I had the money to get a 1Dmk2 [or Mk3...].
--
Mats
Actually, I've seen my old EOS 1n, which was a bit beaten up when I bought it used several years ago - and it's no better after I have had it for a while. The 1-series bodies do tolerate quite a bit of abuse and still take good shots. I just wish I had the money to get a 1Dmk2 [or Mk3...].
--
Mats
more...
house Jersey Shore#39; guys make up
kriskris
04-17 11:55 AM
This is a poignant question for everyone. Any experts that know the law and psychology and the theory of standing in line please answer.
Let me also add one more question. I have a pet that I am bringing from abroad. Which line should the pet stand in? I do not want the IO at Port of entry to call my employer and ask if he tried to find US citizen pets for me .
Ganguteli,
I am sorry to say this, why do you always try to create controversy. If you don't want to answer you should have kept quiet. No hard feelings my friend. I know that there is not a definite answer for my question, but I have posted here just to take expertise from our friends from their previous experiences. Lets say if you are going for a visa, don't you do your homework instead of leaving everything to the mercy of the officer?
If you look at my personal perspective, I am trying to be careful during these hard times.
Let me also add one more question. I have a pet that I am bringing from abroad. Which line should the pet stand in? I do not want the IO at Port of entry to call my employer and ask if he tried to find US citizen pets for me .
Ganguteli,
I am sorry to say this, why do you always try to create controversy. If you don't want to answer you should have kept quiet. No hard feelings my friend. I know that there is not a definite answer for my question, but I have posted here just to take expertise from our friends from their previous experiences. Lets say if you are going for a visa, don't you do your homework instead of leaving everything to the mercy of the officer?
If you look at my personal perspective, I am trying to be careful during these hard times.
tattoo four of Jersey Shore.
sam_gada
07-11 02:56 PM
Hi Friends, I came to know about this protest and would like to pass on the information about the protest to Indian Student Assocaition [strength over 600 active members] at San Jose state University and possible Santa Clara University. I am sure my fellow students will be proud to contribute to the indian community. So, Kindly let me know more details ASAP becuase its already wednesday. My email is sampathg4@yahoo.com
more...
pictures Jersey Shore Drunk Punch Love
MArch172008
07-02 12:34 PM
My wife name in not mentioned while applying I140 , how does it imact?
Can i add her while applying I485
Can i add her while applying I485
dresses Jersey Shore Season 3,
yjprakash
10-11 05:42 PM
I applied for EAD renewal on 07/15. and on sept 30 I called Customer service and yesterday I got a letter that say
"Our records indicate your application for employment authorization document was mailed on August 19, 2008. please check with local post office."
I dont understand what it means because it says they mailed my "application for EAD". It should be like "approval" or some thing like that right?
My online status & customer service automated system says that it was in processing. I dont understand this.
I am going to call Customer service again tomorrow.If any body knows what above sentence means please let me know.
btw, My wife EAD was approved on Aug 15th. She also applied same day.
"Our records indicate your application for employment authorization document was mailed on August 19, 2008. please check with local post office."
I dont understand what it means because it says they mailed my "application for EAD". It should be like "approval" or some thing like that right?
My online status & customer service automated system says that it was in processing. I dont understand this.
I am going to call Customer service again tomorrow.If any body knows what above sentence means please let me know.
btw, My wife EAD was approved on Aug 15th. She also applied same day.
more...
makeup Jersey Shore picture gallery
LondonTown
07-30 02:28 PM
is this common for all those who have a primary vendor between the employer and the client ? or they are just doing it in random ?
Though i live in hyd i chose delhi for appointment coz previous stampings from delhi had no issues :(
I guess it is random.
Though i live in hyd i chose delhi for appointment coz previous stampings from delhi had no issues :(
I guess it is random.
girlfriend punches him in the face.
msyedy
02-05 02:26 PM
you have to give the H1 qualifying exam (I think Step 3), then you have to apply for Residency in universities. They all call you for personal interview, and the results are announced in mid march. Once you are selected, they'll process H1 for you. If you do not have step 3 cleared, then they'll process J1 visa for you. Most of these universities come under non-profit so, H1 quota is not a issue for them.
Oh Mr dexto_al read his question properly before giving your precious advise....
Oh Mr dexto_al read his question properly before giving your precious advise....
hairstyles Jersey Shore stars Ronnie
gcmadhu
12-04 01:50 AM
hello all,
i attended for visa stamping on dec 1st at Hyderabad consulate so i got 221g yellow form but he retained passport with him. he told to submit all the documents that are mentioned on the yellow form. did any body got same thing. usually how many days they will take for processing after submiting the documents
Thanks,
Praveen
I was in the same position 2 years back at Chennai center. I got my passport back one week after I submitted the requested docs.
Good luck.
i attended for visa stamping on dec 1st at Hyderabad consulate so i got 221g yellow form but he retained passport with him. he told to submit all the documents that are mentioned on the yellow form. did any body got same thing. usually how many days they will take for processing after submiting the documents
Thanks,
Praveen
I was in the same position 2 years back at Chennai center. I got my passport back one week after I submitted the requested docs.
Good luck.
kartikiran
05-28 03:21 PM
I did it on May 1st and did it again on May 20th.
For any agenda to be pushed forward funds are needed.
Even just to run a portal like this to give us an opportunity to discuss our issues at a single source also costs.
For any agenda to be pushed forward funds are needed.
Even just to run a portal like this to give us an opportunity to discuss our issues at a single source also costs.
gcdreamer05
09-02 11:29 AM
Can an H-4 visa holder living in the US work for an Indian employer via Internet? Can he use this experience while transferring to H-1B?
To acquire an H-1B visa, all work experience must be live work experience. Work over the Internet is not considered live experience as defined by the H-1B application process.
In addition, it is against immigration rules to work in any form or manner on an H-4 visa. The immigration rules clearly state that H-4 holders can only do voluntary work.
Faqs - H-4 Visa (http://www.assureconsulting.com/faqs/h4_visa.shtml)
I am 100% sure , H4 visa holders cannot work in any position which pays them. It is a violation of the visa.
Right now are you working on h4 visa via internet (telecommute) ?
Thanks GCDreamer and sbmallik.
Are you saying that an H4 visa holder cannot work online for an Indian co. and earn Indian income while residing in the US?
To acquire an H-1B visa, all work experience must be live work experience. Work over the Internet is not considered live experience as defined by the H-1B application process.
In addition, it is against immigration rules to work in any form or manner on an H-4 visa. The immigration rules clearly state that H-4 holders can only do voluntary work.
Faqs - H-4 Visa (http://www.assureconsulting.com/faqs/h4_visa.shtml)
I am 100% sure , H4 visa holders cannot work in any position which pays them. It is a violation of the visa.
Right now are you working on h4 visa via internet (telecommute) ?
Thanks GCDreamer and sbmallik.
Are you saying that an H4 visa holder cannot work online for an Indian co. and earn Indian income while residing in the US?
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento