sheela
09-25 01:47 PM
Name check and fingerprint check are different. Fingerprints are generally getting cleared next day. Not the same with namecheck.
How to know whether NC is cleared. Is there a number to call for confirmation?
How to know whether NC is cleared. Is there a number to call for confirmation?
wallpaper the BlackBerry Torch 9800
baburob2
04-07 04:51 PM
Is H1/H4 renewal in Mexico also existing instead of homecountry?
royus77
06-29 11:48 AM
I am looking to this poll as it will really help where i am in the filing process .
2011 Red BlackBerry Torch 9800
pmlboy
05-01 04:57 PM
Thanks for your reply. I am getting the affidavits from my parents, as well as from blood relatives. However, I have been also asked to provide government document stating why mother's name is absent on birth certificate. I am trying to figure out any government law (currently checking births and deaths act of 1969), which can state that name of head-of-household is sufficient for birth certificates. My birth certificate also mentions the Births and Deaths Rules of 1972 of West Bengal, however, I can't locate an online document. If I have to get a statement from court, does anybody have any idea about what would be the template?
Thanks.
Thanks.
more...
kennyc
May 25th, 2005, 02:13 AM
It's hard to explain, but the first two don't really do anything for me. The third one is certainly a step in the right direction (totally fugly JPEG artifacts ignored), and I think that with a bit of post processing you could really take it in some interesting directions. My eye only notices the deer after a little while; if you wanted to focus more on the deer, you could use a masked adjustment layer to subtly (the key word is subtly - very subtly) darken everything but the animal, and another adjustment layer to add a tiny bit of contrast only to the deer. Of course, QJ will come up with many other and more creative things to try, but that's off the top of my head a few ideas to start with. :)
These are of course "reduced" causing the artifacts and the deer photo was cropped considerably. (I've got to get me that telephoto lens I'm lusting for.)
Thanks for your comments.
KAC
These are of course "reduced" causing the artifacts and the deer photo was cropped considerably. (I've got to get me that telephoto lens I'm lusting for.)
Thanks for your comments.
KAC
bayarea07
07-18 02:34 PM
:-)
more...
bsbawa10
08-14 10:03 PM
Idea is good. But, I can see the rows being edited every now and then. So, how secure is the data really?
It is not secure, all forum people have access to it.
It is not secure, all forum people have access to it.
2010 Blackberry Torch 9800 Red
abd
01-19 10:57 AM
As per latest Service Processing times released on 1/17, NSC's EB2-140 dats is 13-Jul-06. My date is 29-Jul-06, Waiting for approval in near future. I will update the thread as soon as i hear something.
here is the link
https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=Nebraska
here is the link
https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=Nebraska
more...
pbojja
10-20 02:10 PM
4th grader at USCIS decides the future of highly educated people! What a "JOKE".
4 th grader is born in the country where as all the highly educated people are not ..
4 th grader is born in the country where as all the highly educated people are not ..
hair RED BlackBerry Torch 9800
desigirl
12-02 09:42 AM
what are our chances if the Dream Act does not pass? Dream is #7 on the list.
more...
learning01
05-25 06:41 AM
and we need to close one, prefererably this one.
hot Blackberry-torch-9800
WeShallOvercome
07-23 03:36 PM
yellow :D
My lawyer is not telling me the color of the envelope.
Will my application be rejected ? :D :D :D
My lawyer is not telling me the color of the envelope.
Will my application be rejected ? :D :D :D
more...
house Red Blackberry 9800 Torch
avi_ny
08-12 09:33 PM
My case EB3 PD Jan 2004
I40 approved TSC July 2007
485 filed at NSC July 2nd
LUD is 8/12/2007
Does this mean anything ?
On 2nd July, what time was your i-485 application received at NSC?
I40 approved TSC July 2007
485 filed at NSC July 2nd
LUD is 8/12/2007
Does this mean anything ?
On 2nd July, what time was your i-485 application received at NSC?
tattoo lackberry torch 9800
ken
04-08 04:29 PM
bump ^^^^
more...
pictures The pic of BlackBerry Torch
Eb3_frustrated
03-17 11:14 AM
Junoo,
Good to see you getting optimistic, I saw your frustration at April visa Numbers and glad to see you back with green $$$ this time !!
Bill introducted by Sen. Frist is great news, even though it is still in initial stages [Cross our fingers] glad we have something positive happenning.
We need to work harder and make sure it passes the house and becomes a law..long path and we should remain focussed every step of the way.
Thanks once again for your contribution and congratulations for your change in attitude.
Just contributed $100.00. Will contribute more in Future...!
Good to see you getting optimistic, I saw your frustration at April visa Numbers and glad to see you back with green $$$ this time !!
Bill introducted by Sen. Frist is great news, even though it is still in initial stages [Cross our fingers] glad we have something positive happenning.
We need to work harder and make sure it passes the house and becomes a law..long path and we should remain focussed every step of the way.
Thanks once again for your contribution and congratulations for your change in attitude.
Just contributed $100.00. Will contribute more in Future...!
dresses ATamp;T BlackBerry Torch 9800 in
lazycis
02-14 04:48 PM
Violation of regulations is also affirmative misconduct.
Here is an extract from my brief
8 CFR � 103.2(b)(18), titled �Withholding adjudication�:
�A district director may authorize withholding adjudication of a visa petition or other application if the district director determines that an investigation has been undertaken involving a matter relating to eligibility or the exercise of discretion, where applicable, in connection with the application or petition, and that the disclosure of information to the applicant or petitioner in connection with the adjudication of the application or petition would prejudice the ongoing investigation.
If an investigation has been undertaken and has not been completed within one year of its inception, the district director shall review the matter and determine whether adjudication of the petition or application should be held in abeyance for six months or until the investigation is completed, whichever comes sooner. If, after six months of the district director�s determination, the investigation has not been completed, the matter shall be reviewed again by the district director and, if he/she concludes that more time is needed to complete the investigation, adjudication may be held in abeyance for up to another six months. If the investigation is not completed at the end of that time, the matter shall be referred to the regional commissioner, who may authorize that adjudication be held in abeyance for another six months. Thereafter, if the Associate Commissioner, Examinations, with the concurrence of the Associate Commissioner, Enforcement, determines it is necessary to continue to withhold adjudication pending completion of the investigation, he/she shall review that determination every six months.�
The legal alien�s application has been pending for over 2.5 years at the time of filing his complaint with the District Court. So, according to the requirements of 8 CFR � 103.2(b)(18), his application should have been reviewed twice by the USCIS district director (at 1 and 1.5 year marks), once by the USCIS regional commissioner (at 2 year mark) and once by the Associate Commissioner, Examinations, with the concurrence of the Associate Commissioner, Enforcement. There is no evidence on record that these procedures have been followed. Therefore, the USCIS have violated the Federal regulations and �unlawfully withheld� adjudication of the legal alien�s application. Furthermore, 8 CFR � 103.2(b)(18) is not part of the Subchapter II of the Chapter 12 of the INA, therefore jurisdictional bar of � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not preclude review of the withholding of adjudication.
Here is an extract from my brief
8 CFR � 103.2(b)(18), titled �Withholding adjudication�:
�A district director may authorize withholding adjudication of a visa petition or other application if the district director determines that an investigation has been undertaken involving a matter relating to eligibility or the exercise of discretion, where applicable, in connection with the application or petition, and that the disclosure of information to the applicant or petitioner in connection with the adjudication of the application or petition would prejudice the ongoing investigation.
If an investigation has been undertaken and has not been completed within one year of its inception, the district director shall review the matter and determine whether adjudication of the petition or application should be held in abeyance for six months or until the investigation is completed, whichever comes sooner. If, after six months of the district director�s determination, the investigation has not been completed, the matter shall be reviewed again by the district director and, if he/she concludes that more time is needed to complete the investigation, adjudication may be held in abeyance for up to another six months. If the investigation is not completed at the end of that time, the matter shall be referred to the regional commissioner, who may authorize that adjudication be held in abeyance for another six months. Thereafter, if the Associate Commissioner, Examinations, with the concurrence of the Associate Commissioner, Enforcement, determines it is necessary to continue to withhold adjudication pending completion of the investigation, he/she shall review that determination every six months.�
The legal alien�s application has been pending for over 2.5 years at the time of filing his complaint with the District Court. So, according to the requirements of 8 CFR � 103.2(b)(18), his application should have been reviewed twice by the USCIS district director (at 1 and 1.5 year marks), once by the USCIS regional commissioner (at 2 year mark) and once by the Associate Commissioner, Examinations, with the concurrence of the Associate Commissioner, Enforcement. There is no evidence on record that these procedures have been followed. Therefore, the USCIS have violated the Federal regulations and �unlawfully withheld� adjudication of the legal alien�s application. Furthermore, 8 CFR � 103.2(b)(18) is not part of the Subchapter II of the Chapter 12 of the INA, therefore jurisdictional bar of � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not preclude review of the withholding of adjudication.
more...
makeup Bell Red Torch 9800
ys2jax
07-14 09:38 AM
i thought india EB quota had a hard constraint of 7% but 17000 seems to be much higher than that out of the total 140K, can somebody explain
girlfriend Get Your BlackBerry Torch 9800
gk_2000
05-20 05:31 PM
I have Master's degree from US and have been with the company for 6yrs. This is the response from my Attorney on porting to EB2 category. My I485 was filed during July 2007. What can i do to be able to file a new PERM LC for porting to EB2 category without affecting my I485 application? Please advise.
Thank you for your email inquiring about filing a new PERM labor certification (PERM LC) application to qualify for the EB-2 preference category. A final determination has been made on whether a new PERM LC can be filed.
Regulations that govern the PERM Labor Certification process do not permit an employer to file a new PERM LC application for the sole purpose of shortening the wait time in immigrant visa preference categories. Company will not file a new PERM LC unless it is clearly required by regulation.
We completed our research and legal analysis. The purpose of the research was to determine whether you can still benefit from your current case, or whether substantial job changes require, by law, a new PERM LC application to be filed on your behalf.
Our final assessment is that while some job changes have occurred, the changes are not substantial in the context of labor certification regulations. Please note that while the group, products and/or daily tasks in your employment may be different, these changes are not substantial from an immigration perspective and do not require a new PERM LC. In addition, portability provisions of the law allow considerable flexibility for job changes when an I-485 Adjustment of Status application has been filed.
This is not an internal policy matter, rather company's compliance with U.S. Department of Labor regulations that govern the PERM LC process.
Translation: We are an a$$#ole company that is not interested in retaining their talent. You are better off trying somewhere else and getting your GC, and coming back and joining us, then sc*** us by becoming our boss
Thank you for your email inquiring about filing a new PERM labor certification (PERM LC) application to qualify for the EB-2 preference category. A final determination has been made on whether a new PERM LC can be filed.
Regulations that govern the PERM Labor Certification process do not permit an employer to file a new PERM LC application for the sole purpose of shortening the wait time in immigrant visa preference categories. Company will not file a new PERM LC unless it is clearly required by regulation.
We completed our research and legal analysis. The purpose of the research was to determine whether you can still benefit from your current case, or whether substantial job changes require, by law, a new PERM LC application to be filed on your behalf.
Our final assessment is that while some job changes have occurred, the changes are not substantial in the context of labor certification regulations. Please note that while the group, products and/or daily tasks in your employment may be different, these changes are not substantial from an immigration perspective and do not require a new PERM LC. In addition, portability provisions of the law allow considerable flexibility for job changes when an I-485 Adjustment of Status application has been filed.
This is not an internal policy matter, rather company's compliance with U.S. Department of Labor regulations that govern the PERM LC process.
Translation: We are an a$$#ole company that is not interested in retaining their talent. You are better off trying somewhere else and getting your GC, and coming back and joining us, then sc*** us by becoming our boss
hairstyles BlackBerry Torch 9800 in
smartboy75
07-17 06:29 PM
Get back to work....next you would come up with the idea of personally visiting her....lets no get overboard....send in a thank you note..
ImmiLosers
09-30 03:41 PM
If your last FP was more than 15 months ago, then write to local congressman, that usually works.
Congressman for FP, you may want to contact USCIS first. They may not expedite your I-485 but they are good in sending these things...
Congressman for FP, you may want to contact USCIS first. They may not expedite your I-485 but they are good in sending these things...
krishnam70
05-06 11:52 AM
Here is my story, Immigration experts are requested to suggest.......
My H1 started from Oct 05 with Employer A.
Applied Labor in Feb 07, Approved in Feb 07.
I-140 approved in May 07.
Applied I-485 in July 07, still pending.
EAD, AP received in Oct 07 - Expired in Oct 08 (Never Used)
Renewed EAD in Oct 08, valid till Oct 2010.
In Oct 08 H1 expired (3 years), Employer A filed for extension in Sep 08.
The project with Employer A finished on Nov 22, 08. (on H1)
Started new project with Employer B on EAD from Nov 24, 08.
(AC21 was not filed)
Employer A responded an RFE for H1 extension in Jan 09. (3years of Tax
Returns, W2, etc)
Due to miscommunication between me and Employer A, he was notified of my
new job on EAD with Employer B in march 09.
H1 Extension with Employer A got REJECTED on April 26, 09. Reason - End client
contract not submitted. (It was not mentioned in RFE)
Never filed an AC21.
What should I do now ? Will this H1 extension rejection become an
obstable in getting I-485 approved ? Will there be any problem in getting
third extension of EAD if I-485 is still pending ?
Should I appeal this case by submitting all the end client contracts ? But I have
used EAD ...........I have good relation with Employer A and am assuming he will
not revoke my I-140.
Experts please suggest........
Here is my observation
1. Since your H1 with your original employer A was rejected the next step from your employer would be to revoke the H1 petition ( i am not sure if rejection means automatic revocation)
2. You implicitly used AC21 by moving to a new employer and working on an EAD
3. You could have an issue if, employer A revokes your I140. There is some evidence to suggest that lot of such cases are getting NOID and getting rejected. This is based on readings on this forum in other threads.
4. On the contrary if employer A is not withdrawing your I140 which means he is still willing to support your GC ( implicit meaning is that you will work for him in future). You might get an RFE next time you apply for some renewal or just like that on your 485 asking you for 'proof of employment'. In which case you submit the necessary documentation.
The key here really is to make sure your Employer A does not revoke your I140. I know the advocates of AC21 have been arguing in the other threads that it beats the purpose of Ac21 if USCIS is rejecting such cases but its a grey area and certainly a cause for concern.
- cheers
kris
My H1 started from Oct 05 with Employer A.
Applied Labor in Feb 07, Approved in Feb 07.
I-140 approved in May 07.
Applied I-485 in July 07, still pending.
EAD, AP received in Oct 07 - Expired in Oct 08 (Never Used)
Renewed EAD in Oct 08, valid till Oct 2010.
In Oct 08 H1 expired (3 years), Employer A filed for extension in Sep 08.
The project with Employer A finished on Nov 22, 08. (on H1)
Started new project with Employer B on EAD from Nov 24, 08.
(AC21 was not filed)
Employer A responded an RFE for H1 extension in Jan 09. (3years of Tax
Returns, W2, etc)
Due to miscommunication between me and Employer A, he was notified of my
new job on EAD with Employer B in march 09.
H1 Extension with Employer A got REJECTED on April 26, 09. Reason - End client
contract not submitted. (It was not mentioned in RFE)
Never filed an AC21.
What should I do now ? Will this H1 extension rejection become an
obstable in getting I-485 approved ? Will there be any problem in getting
third extension of EAD if I-485 is still pending ?
Should I appeal this case by submitting all the end client contracts ? But I have
used EAD ...........I have good relation with Employer A and am assuming he will
not revoke my I-140.
Experts please suggest........
Here is my observation
1. Since your H1 with your original employer A was rejected the next step from your employer would be to revoke the H1 petition ( i am not sure if rejection means automatic revocation)
2. You implicitly used AC21 by moving to a new employer and working on an EAD
3. You could have an issue if, employer A revokes your I140. There is some evidence to suggest that lot of such cases are getting NOID and getting rejected. This is based on readings on this forum in other threads.
4. On the contrary if employer A is not withdrawing your I140 which means he is still willing to support your GC ( implicit meaning is that you will work for him in future). You might get an RFE next time you apply for some renewal or just like that on your 485 asking you for 'proof of employment'. In which case you submit the necessary documentation.
The key here really is to make sure your Employer A does not revoke your I140. I know the advocates of AC21 have been arguing in the other threads that it beats the purpose of Ac21 if USCIS is rejecting such cases but its a grey area and certainly a cause for concern.
- cheers
kris
No comments:
Post a Comment