DallasBlue
07-15 12:01 AM
Conference call for the TX state chapter every first and third sunday at 3pm cst of the month.
Dial-In #: 1-218-486-1300
Bridge:
Thanks
Dial-In #: 1-218-486-1300
Bridge:
Thanks
wallpaper earth live satellite
belmontboy
04-10 03:30 PM
source?
purgan
09-19 11:28 AM
Thanks for posting, manderson.
The line "the group's efforts will be a test of the commonly expressed view that Americans are not opposed to immigration, only to illegal immigration" says it all.
IV should consider adopting this as a byline...
Also, pl.include this in the "IV in the News" section. I did not see it there..
The line "the group's efforts will be a test of the commonly expressed view that Americans are not opposed to immigration, only to illegal immigration" says it all.
IV should consider adopting this as a byline...
Also, pl.include this in the "IV in the News" section. I did not see it there..
2011 google earth live
rsayed
04-27 08:08 PM
there is no strive in senate....what r they goona debate? I don't think they are going to discuss other than circus if at all they do
Yep, true. But, sounds like there's just too many Bills floating around, this year!
Yep, true. But, sounds like there's just too many Bills floating around, this year!
more...
americandesi
04-13 02:58 PM
I was in this situation few years back. I was on bench for 8 months (not paid). I chose not to reply to the DOL letter. I feared that accepting that I was on bench for 8 months will make you out of status.
Every time you go for H1 revalidation, you will be asked were you out of status any time.
Later I have done 3 H1 revalidations (Canada), no problems. If sending reply is not mandatory then keep quiet. Six months later my employer filed for bankruptcy.
Not getting paid on bench for >180 days has serious consequences during the adjudication of I-485. Read the following thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6205
Every time you go for H1 revalidation, you will be asked were you out of status any time.
Later I have done 3 H1 revalidations (Canada), no problems. If sending reply is not mandatory then keep quiet. Six months later my employer filed for bankruptcy.
Not getting paid on bench for >180 days has serious consequences during the adjudication of I-485. Read the following thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6205
ebizash
03-31 03:44 PM
I wonder why his/her handle is "webPromo"??? hmm... promoting "something" on the web...:D.
more...
lagsam
07-22 07:26 PM
We have the same case. Our AP's (mine, my wife's and daughter's) are expiring next month. Fortunately, I have a close friend and an immigration attorney.
He said that it is not mandatory to renew the APs. Unless to you wanted to travel outside of the US, then you will need to renew your APs. If they are expired, you need to apply for a new one.
Three of us are paroled.
He also explained that it will not affect your AOS.
I hope I was able to help you.
FYI--this was the explaination of my immigration attorney. I am not an immigration attorney myself.
Goodluck
He said that it is not mandatory to renew the APs. Unless to you wanted to travel outside of the US, then you will need to renew your APs. If they are expired, you need to apply for a new one.
Three of us are paroled.
He also explained that it will not affect your AOS.
I hope I was able to help you.
FYI--this was the explaination of my immigration attorney. I am not an immigration attorney myself.
Goodluck
2010 Satellite view of my house 1
Ramg
11-19 06:54 PM
Is is it ok if you receive just 2 AP papers?
WHat is the difference between 2/ 3 AP papers?
Thank you.
I got only one AP paper. Is it ok to travel to India?
WHat is the difference between 2/ 3 AP papers?
Thank you.
I got only one AP paper. Is it ok to travel to India?
more...
Green_Always
05-08 07:28 PM
I use SBI and it is good. My Vote is for SBI .
SBI - Global Link Services (http://remit.onlinesbi.com/)
SBI - Global Link Services (http://remit.onlinesbi.com/)
hair Keygoogle live satellite
admin
06-01 11:02 PM
This is a PM from for_ac21iv to me. He couldn't post here as I had closed the thread.
Hi Admin,
I started the new thread and poll "Separate bill for legal immigrants from CIR provisions", with the intention to help realise and pursue what appeard to me as a option/opportunity that might help us legal immigrants. It just seems to me from media and other forums that cir may take a long long time.
I donot have complete knowledge of the process and timing of how legislation and lobbying works. Educating myself from aritles and posts on this and similar forums.
It has been almost 5 years since I started my gc process and am really looking for ways that might make it faster for people like me and future applicants going forward and I really appreciate what IV is doing in this direction.
I apologize if my poll, thread or intentions came across as anything but the above. Also, I will change my username, it has "iv" and may have lead others to interpret my messages as from IV.
Please post this message in that thread for me. It looks like "Separate bill for legal immigrants from CIR provisions" thread is closed.
Sincerely,
Hi Admin,
I started the new thread and poll "Separate bill for legal immigrants from CIR provisions", with the intention to help realise and pursue what appeard to me as a option/opportunity that might help us legal immigrants. It just seems to me from media and other forums that cir may take a long long time.
I donot have complete knowledge of the process and timing of how legislation and lobbying works. Educating myself from aritles and posts on this and similar forums.
It has been almost 5 years since I started my gc process and am really looking for ways that might make it faster for people like me and future applicants going forward and I really appreciate what IV is doing in this direction.
I apologize if my poll, thread or intentions came across as anything but the above. Also, I will change my username, it has "iv" and may have lead others to interpret my messages as from IV.
Please post this message in that thread for me. It looks like "Separate bill for legal immigrants from CIR provisions" thread is closed.
Sincerely,
more...
bank_king2003
04-21 11:59 AM
greyhair - that was something i tried on my own and i have never represented IV.
you are right we may sue congress but to win that is much much tough as even the judge is been appointed by the president which i guess is a member of congress :) but one can certainly try.
this requires a big movement for which IV is a very nice platform. that is the reason i keep shouting on this forum that nothing will happen untill you somehow make uscis held accountable or in this case even congress accountable.
Filing a Lawsuit against USCIS and CONGRESS together may lead us somewhere.
you are right we may sue congress but to win that is much much tough as even the judge is been appointed by the president which i guess is a member of congress :) but one can certainly try.
this requires a big movement for which IV is a very nice platform. that is the reason i keep shouting on this forum that nothing will happen untill you somehow make uscis held accountable or in this case even congress accountable.
Filing a Lawsuit against USCIS and CONGRESS together may lead us somewhere.
hot Google+earth+live+greece
ItIsNotFunny
06-11 12:45 PM
You idiot, this is your third post in last 10 minutes about your deleted post. Big deal! if your question was deleted, or, if you are not able to find your post???
It seems you want others to spoon feed you everything. Stop this bickering and stop complaining. Stop taking offense from nonsensical things, grow-up and look at the bigger picture.
Over reaction by "reno" without checking the thread shifting was not good. But under any circumstances we should avoid using wrong words. This creates a wrong impression and indirectly hurts the organization. We have some examples in past.
I appreciate Pappu's maturity to tackle the issue and his explanation.
It seems you want others to spoon feed you everything. Stop this bickering and stop complaining. Stop taking offense from nonsensical things, grow-up and look at the bigger picture.
Over reaction by "reno" without checking the thread shifting was not good. But under any circumstances we should avoid using wrong words. This creates a wrong impression and indirectly hurts the organization. We have some examples in past.
I appreciate Pappu's maturity to tackle the issue and his explanation.
more...
house Free Live Satellite Maps
sangeethak31
07-15 12:36 PM
Here is the link
H1B and L1 Visas - U.S. Consulate General Mumbai, India (http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/h1b_and_l1_visas.html)
Thanks,
Sangeetha K
H1B and L1 Visas - U.S. Consulate General Mumbai, India (http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/h1b_and_l1_visas.html)
Thanks,
Sangeetha K
tattoo google earth live,
sr123
11-21 09:10 AM
Semt email.
more...
pictures Ofgoogle earth live dec
GreenCard_Soon
02-16 12:38 PM
Hi,
Just saw this thread today. Hence, unfortunately missed the opportunity to attend yesterday's call. I would like to join into this effort.
Please let me know of the next time we plan to get together about this.
Thanks
Just saw this thread today. Hence, unfortunately missed the opportunity to attend yesterday's call. I would like to join into this effort.
Please let me know of the next time we plan to get together about this.
Thanks
dresses Google+earth+live+japan
FinalGC
05-01 10:02 AM
You may be able to reopen the old case, provided the old emploer has not sent a letter to USCIS stating the intent to not persue......if not talk to old employer and lawyer....they may ask you to pay some money for it.....eventually, you may need to work for them for at least 6 months, after getting GC, which will get you legally correct in front of USCIS.
The best thing you can do now is file a new GC with new employer and recapture the 2001 PD. This is possible since your 140 was approved the first time. Make sure the first LC application is similar to the new one. This is only possible, if you keep your calm, negotiate with the old lawyer and get all the LC and 140 approval papers or whatever is needed so that you can PORT the PD and use them for the new case.
I know I am asking you to jump ahead of my case which has a PD of 2005, but hey we are here to help....hope you are able to get this sorted. Just keep calm, remember there is no problem in this world that cannot be solved....your anger will only make you do things that you might regret later.
All the best.
The best thing you can do now is file a new GC with new employer and recapture the 2001 PD. This is possible since your 140 was approved the first time. Make sure the first LC application is similar to the new one. This is only possible, if you keep your calm, negotiate with the old lawyer and get all the LC and 140 approval papers or whatever is needed so that you can PORT the PD and use them for the new case.
I know I am asking you to jump ahead of my case which has a PD of 2005, but hey we are here to help....hope you are able to get this sorted. Just keep calm, remember there is no problem in this world that cannot be solved....your anger will only make you do things that you might regret later.
All the best.
more...
makeup Google Earth, TerraServer
Madhuri
07-11 11:02 PM
If this is true it's really horrible and scary that this gov. agency is handling our applications.
This is beginning to look more and more like a organized and deliberate attempt to block people from filing for AOS.If the mysterious "knowledgeable official" quoted on the website can be summoned in court- that would be game over for the USCIS right there......
http://www.usimmlaw.com/current_information.htm
Copying the contents of the website below :
Visa numbers WERE available July 2nd!!
We have confirmed with a knowledgeable official in the Department of State Visa Office that USCIS was requesting visa numbers on Sunday July 1st, and Monday morning July 2nd - and that visa numbers were still being issued as late as the morning of July 2nd!
In fact, close to 30,000 visa numbers were requested and issued in July - through the morning of July 2nd. And we believe that many - if not most - of the requests made in the first two days of July were for applicants whose priority dates were not current in June!
So how can USCIS refuse to accept I-485 filings received BEFORE the State Department issued its notice that all visa numbers had been used???? We have not yet confirmed the return of any I-485s filed in July. But we do know that applications were reaching the USCIS before the State Department announcement - and while the USCIS was frantically working to use up the entire year's allocation.
USCIS did not use all visa numbers before July 2nd.
Did USCIS actually use the visa numbers it requested????
Historically, the USCIS doesn't request a visa number from the Department of State until it is ready to grant the adjustment of status application. US Consuls overseas request visa numbers the month before they intend to issue the immigrant visa. This is the reason why consuls return about ten percent of the visa numbers requested - and why USCIS does not generally return any numbers.
In fact, in making allocations of visa numbers, the Department of State factors in an expected return rate for consuls - but not for the USCIS. And the USCIS - before this June - used about 85% of the total immigrant visa numbers available.
However, already this month, the USCIS has been returning visa numbers. This confirms our earlier suspicion that the only way the USCIS could request 68,000 visa numbers in a matter of weeks was to request them in advance of adjudicating cases.
We believe USCIS exhausted the visa numbers by simply requesting them - not by using them. If so, and for reasons we will post shortly, we believe that over 30,000 visa numbers requested by USCIS will go unused - and will be wasted this year!
This is beginning to look more and more like a organized and deliberate attempt to block people from filing for AOS.If the mysterious "knowledgeable official" quoted on the website can be summoned in court- that would be game over for the USCIS right there......
http://www.usimmlaw.com/current_information.htm
Copying the contents of the website below :
Visa numbers WERE available July 2nd!!
We have confirmed with a knowledgeable official in the Department of State Visa Office that USCIS was requesting visa numbers on Sunday July 1st, and Monday morning July 2nd - and that visa numbers were still being issued as late as the morning of July 2nd!
In fact, close to 30,000 visa numbers were requested and issued in July - through the morning of July 2nd. And we believe that many - if not most - of the requests made in the first two days of July were for applicants whose priority dates were not current in June!
So how can USCIS refuse to accept I-485 filings received BEFORE the State Department issued its notice that all visa numbers had been used???? We have not yet confirmed the return of any I-485s filed in July. But we do know that applications were reaching the USCIS before the State Department announcement - and while the USCIS was frantically working to use up the entire year's allocation.
USCIS did not use all visa numbers before July 2nd.
Did USCIS actually use the visa numbers it requested????
Historically, the USCIS doesn't request a visa number from the Department of State until it is ready to grant the adjustment of status application. US Consuls overseas request visa numbers the month before they intend to issue the immigrant visa. This is the reason why consuls return about ten percent of the visa numbers requested - and why USCIS does not generally return any numbers.
In fact, in making allocations of visa numbers, the Department of State factors in an expected return rate for consuls - but not for the USCIS. And the USCIS - before this June - used about 85% of the total immigrant visa numbers available.
However, already this month, the USCIS has been returning visa numbers. This confirms our earlier suspicion that the only way the USCIS could request 68,000 visa numbers in a matter of weeks was to request them in advance of adjudicating cases.
We believe USCIS exhausted the visa numbers by simply requesting them - not by using them. If so, and for reasons we will post shortly, we believe that over 30,000 visa numbers requested by USCIS will go unused - and will be wasted this year!
girlfriend Google+earth+live+greece
tinoue
09-27 08:24 AM
Hi All,
I received the I-485 reciept notice yesterday from my lawyer (see below for my info), but the alien number on I-485 is different from the number on my approved I-140. My I-140 has a number starting with A099, but my I-485 reciept notice has a number starting with A088. Someone in this forum mentioned that A099 is for the primary applicant and A088 is for the dependant. I am the primary applicant for I-485, so if it is true, I should get A099, not A088. I am not sure if I can have two different alien numbers or if this is a mistake by USCIS. Is anyone in the same situation?
I am sorry if this issue is discussed previously (I couldn't find the related thread). I would greatly appreciate your input.
Thank you very much.
-------------------------------------------------------------
EB1 ROW
PD: 08/2006
140: approved in 06/2007 (NSC)
485 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
765 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
131 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
FP notice recieved on 09/24/07
FP appointment (self and spouse): 10/16/07
I received the I-485 reciept notice yesterday from my lawyer (see below for my info), but the alien number on I-485 is different from the number on my approved I-140. My I-140 has a number starting with A099, but my I-485 reciept notice has a number starting with A088. Someone in this forum mentioned that A099 is for the primary applicant and A088 is for the dependant. I am the primary applicant for I-485, so if it is true, I should get A099, not A088. I am not sure if I can have two different alien numbers or if this is a mistake by USCIS. Is anyone in the same situation?
I am sorry if this issue is discussed previously (I couldn't find the related thread). I would greatly appreciate your input.
Thank you very much.
-------------------------------------------------------------
EB1 ROW
PD: 08/2006
140: approved in 06/2007 (NSC)
485 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
765 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
131 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
FP notice recieved on 09/24/07
FP appointment (self and spouse): 10/16/07
hairstyles Google+earth+live+sri+
rolrblade
07-27 04:00 PM
Not entirely true..
Some employees of my client company who filed their AOS in june did so without signing a single piece of paper and already got their RNs and FP's done as well.
There are a few things to see if what your lawyer did was correct:
1) Did he ask you to write him/her an email/letter authorizing them to sign on your behalf
2) Your company has your facsimile signatures or signature stamps.
this is the correct information. Applicant signature is not necessary if you have an attorney representation form. I have verified this with two different attorneys and also my HR guy, who suprisingly is very knowledgeable in GC process.
In my own case I have sent an email to the attorney authorizing them to sign on my behalf. The firm has confirmed that it is sufficient. I just off the phone with them too. 3 attorney - SAME ANSWER.
Some employees of my client company who filed their AOS in june did so without signing a single piece of paper and already got their RNs and FP's done as well.
There are a few things to see if what your lawyer did was correct:
1) Did he ask you to write him/her an email/letter authorizing them to sign on your behalf
2) Your company has your facsimile signatures or signature stamps.
this is the correct information. Applicant signature is not necessary if you have an attorney representation form. I have verified this with two different attorneys and also my HR guy, who suprisingly is very knowledgeable in GC process.
In my own case I have sent an email to the attorney authorizing them to sign on my behalf. The firm has confirmed that it is sufficient. I just off the phone with them too. 3 attorney - SAME ANSWER.
leoindiano
03-17 12:50 PM
I agree, I wanted to take everybodys perspective on my guess. Also, 2004 is the only year which can be predictable, after that everything went haywire for EB2.
lazycis
05-07 01:29 PM
Forget to mention that you can port to self-employment :)
No comments:
Post a Comment