yabadaba
06-21 09:50 AM
we can only guess
i would assume cases that are not substitute labor, porting priotity date, cross chargeability, clear birth certificates, clear employer verification letter, no namecheck issues, no fingerprinting issues, etc
i would assume cases that are not substitute labor, porting priotity date, cross chargeability, clear birth certificates, clear employer verification letter, no namecheck issues, no fingerprinting issues, etc
wallpaper Girls Wallpapers Blog: Hot
gc_chahiye
08-05 10:58 PM
this number has been thrown around a lot
per uscis as of July 27 they had 75K pieces of mail
so maybe 125K applications including families.
this will increase a bit, so let's say 175K or 200K
still quite different from 700K
per that visa bulletin preediction mail from Jan Pedersons lawfirm USCIS recevied 75k applications within 2 days of July. NOT by July 27th. Anyway will need to wait for USCIS stats to see how many they get by Aug 17th, but looking at how most lawfirms are still very busy with 485 filing I would expect a number midway between 200K and 700K (atleast!)
per uscis as of July 27 they had 75K pieces of mail
so maybe 125K applications including families.
this will increase a bit, so let's say 175K or 200K
still quite different from 700K
per that visa bulletin preediction mail from Jan Pedersons lawfirm USCIS recevied 75k applications within 2 days of July. NOT by July 27th. Anyway will need to wait for USCIS stats to see how many they get by Aug 17th, but looking at how most lawfirms are still very busy with 485 filing I would expect a number midway between 200K and 700K (atleast!)
h1techSlave
07-13 07:57 PM
Thanks every body for explaining these things.
And now, what can I do to get out of the "unknown quantity" with a grey square?
Cheers,
h1techSlave
And now, what can I do to get out of the "unknown quantity" with a grey square?
Cheers,
h1techSlave
2011 Sexy Hot babs and models
manusingh
01-08 10:06 AM
My wife attended for H4 stamping at Hyderabad consulate yesterday, 10/13/09. The consulate officer was asking for my current visa copy even though my wife gave my H1B extension approval copy with valid I-94.
Here is the immigration status so far:
1. Current H1 valid from Oct 09-Sep 11 with I-94
2. Earlier changed from L1 to H1 in April 2007. Then traveled to India using AP as I filed for 485 in Aug 07.
3. Had L1 visa stamping in Jan 2006.
So my old passport has L1 visa and new passport has AP stamp. Now I am thinking to answer the US Consulate Hyderabad explaining my current status - that I have a approved H1 petition but no visa stamping.
Please let me know your suggestions!!! Is there any chance that the visa can be rejected and revoked.
Now my last option is to apply for AP for my wife while she is in India.
Can I apply for AP when she is in India?
Thanks
Hi
Does your wife got H-1B stamped, could you pl send us all details. It may help us.
Here is the immigration status so far:
1. Current H1 valid from Oct 09-Sep 11 with I-94
2. Earlier changed from L1 to H1 in April 2007. Then traveled to India using AP as I filed for 485 in Aug 07.
3. Had L1 visa stamping in Jan 2006.
So my old passport has L1 visa and new passport has AP stamp. Now I am thinking to answer the US Consulate Hyderabad explaining my current status - that I have a approved H1 petition but no visa stamping.
Please let me know your suggestions!!! Is there any chance that the visa can be rejected and revoked.
Now my last option is to apply for AP for my wife while she is in India.
Can I apply for AP when she is in India?
Thanks
Hi
Does your wife got H-1B stamped, could you pl send us all details. It may help us.
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.
GCNirvana007
04-08 03:05 PM
Trying to reach you guys for a while now.
1. How many active users are there as of today.
2. What are the media we have connection with.
Thanks.
1. How many active users are there as of today.
2. What are the media we have connection with.
Thanks.
more...
ita
01-23 10:06 AM
Hi,
When I go online to get the visa appointment for parents I'm not able to get a date and this has been going since 25 days(It asks to check back in 24 hours)
They changed the visa fee this year (2008).
The message on the vfs site says all those with HDFC receipt# obtained last year should try and get visa appointment before Jan/31/08.
What can I do now?
There is also no way I can put my name in the signature box while filling the application.(When the application is filled by someone not parents themselves they ask for siganture of the person filling the application )
What should we do in this case as we are filing online?
Will there be any problem when you don't have H1 stamping on the passport (but have valid H1 and have EAD and AP)
Will there be any problem in visa approval for parents.
Thank you.
When I go online to get the visa appointment for parents I'm not able to get a date and this has been going since 25 days(It asks to check back in 24 hours)
They changed the visa fee this year (2008).
The message on the vfs site says all those with HDFC receipt# obtained last year should try and get visa appointment before Jan/31/08.
What can I do now?
There is also no way I can put my name in the signature box while filling the application.(When the application is filled by someone not parents themselves they ask for siganture of the person filling the application )
What should we do in this case as we are filing online?
Will there be any problem when you don't have H1 stamping on the passport (but have valid H1 and have EAD and AP)
Will there be any problem in visa approval for parents.
Thank you.
2010 150 Top Models and Hot Girls
gc_check
04-08 04:22 PM
Visa Bulletin For May 2011 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5424.html)
Employment- Based All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed
CHINA- mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
1st C C C C C
2nd C 01AUG06 01JUL06 C C
3rd 22AUG05 15APR04 15APR02 08SEP04 22AUG05
Other Workers 08SEP03 22APR03 15APR02 08SEP03 08SEP03
.
Well, this shows the reality of demand for visa and a dire need for a solution.
Well, Congress will stills get paid even if the Govt. is shutdown and they do something!!! about this along with the tons of other items on their to do list :mad:
Employment- Based All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed
CHINA- mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
1st C C C C C
2nd C 01AUG06 01JUL06 C C
3rd 22AUG05 15APR04 15APR02 08SEP04 22AUG05
Other Workers 08SEP03 22APR03 15APR02 08SEP03 08SEP03
.
Well, this shows the reality of demand for visa and a dire need for a solution.
Well, Congress will stills get paid even if the Govt. is shutdown and they do something!!! about this along with the tons of other items on their to do list :mad:
more...
looneytunezez
04-08 04:17 PM
Employment-based: At this time the amount of demand being received in the Employment First preference is extremely low compared with that of recent years. Absent an immediate and dramatic increase in demand, this category will remain “Current” for all countries. It also appears unlikely that a Second preference cut-off date will be imposed for any countries other than China and India, where demand is extremely high. Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off date movement each month during the coming months are as follows:
Employment Second: Demand by applicants who are “upgrading” their status from Employment Third to Employment Second preference is very high, but the exact amount is not known. Such “upgrades” are in addition to the known demand already reported, and make it very difficult to predict ultimate demand based on forward movement of the China and India cut-off dates. While thousands of “otherwise unused” numbers will be available for potential use without regard to the China and India Employment Second preference per-country annual limits, it is not known how the “upgrades” will ultimately impact the cut-offs for those two countries. (The allocation of “otherwise unused” numbers is discussed below.)
China: none to three weeks expected through July. No August or September estimate is possible at this time.
India: One or more weeks, possibly followed by additional movement if demand remains stable. No August or September estimate is possible at this time.
Employment Third:
Worldwide: three to six weeks
China: one to three weeks
India: none to two weeks
Mexico: although continued forward movement is expected, no specific projections are possible at this time.
Philippines: three to six weeks
Please be advised that the above ranges are estimates based upon the current demand patterns, and are subject to fluctuations during the coming months. The cut-off dates for upcoming months cannot be guaranteed, and no assumptions should be made until the formal dates are announced.
Allocation of “otherwise unused” numbers in accordance with Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 202(a)(5)
INA Section 202(a)(5) provides that if total demand in a calendar quarter will be insufficient to use all available numbers in an Employment preference, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. Based on current levels of demand, there will be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment First and Second preferences. Such numbers may be allocated without regard to per-country limits, once a country has reached its preference annual limit. Since under INA Section 203(e) such numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability, greater number use by one country would indicate greater demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates. Based on amount and priority dates of pending demand and year-to-date number use, a different cut-off date could be applied to each oversubscribed country, for the purpose of assuring that the maximum amount of available numbers will be used. Note that a cut-off date imposed to control the use of “otherwise unused” numbers could be earlier than the cut-off date established to control number use under a quarterly or per-country annual limit. For example, at present the India Employment Second preference cut-off date governs the use of numbers under Section 202(a)(5), India having reached its Employment Second annual limit; the China Employment Second preference cut-off date governs number use under the quarterly limit, since China has not yet reached its Employment Second annual limit.
The rate of number use under Section 202(a)(5) is continually monitored to determine whether subsequent adjustments are needed in visa availability for the oversubscribed countries. This helps assure that all available Employment preference numbers will be used, while insuring that numbers also remain available for applicants from all other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit.
As mentioned earlier, the number of applicants who may be “upgrading” their status from Employment Third to Employment Second preference is unknown. As a result, the cut-off date which governs use of Section 202(a)(5) numbers has been advanced more rapidly than normal, in an attempt to ascertain the amount of “upgrade” demand in the pipeline while at the same time administering use of the available numbers. This action risks a surge in demand that could adversely impact the cut-off date later in the fiscal year. However, it also limits the possibility that potential demand would not materialize and the annual limit would not be reached due to lack of cut-off date movement.
Employment Second: Demand by applicants who are “upgrading” their status from Employment Third to Employment Second preference is very high, but the exact amount is not known. Such “upgrades” are in addition to the known demand already reported, and make it very difficult to predict ultimate demand based on forward movement of the China and India cut-off dates. While thousands of “otherwise unused” numbers will be available for potential use without regard to the China and India Employment Second preference per-country annual limits, it is not known how the “upgrades” will ultimately impact the cut-offs for those two countries. (The allocation of “otherwise unused” numbers is discussed below.)
China: none to three weeks expected through July. No August or September estimate is possible at this time.
India: One or more weeks, possibly followed by additional movement if demand remains stable. No August or September estimate is possible at this time.
Employment Third:
Worldwide: three to six weeks
China: one to three weeks
India: none to two weeks
Mexico: although continued forward movement is expected, no specific projections are possible at this time.
Philippines: three to six weeks
Please be advised that the above ranges are estimates based upon the current demand patterns, and are subject to fluctuations during the coming months. The cut-off dates for upcoming months cannot be guaranteed, and no assumptions should be made until the formal dates are announced.
Allocation of “otherwise unused” numbers in accordance with Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 202(a)(5)
INA Section 202(a)(5) provides that if total demand in a calendar quarter will be insufficient to use all available numbers in an Employment preference, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. Based on current levels of demand, there will be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment First and Second preferences. Such numbers may be allocated without regard to per-country limits, once a country has reached its preference annual limit. Since under INA Section 203(e) such numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability, greater number use by one country would indicate greater demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates. Based on amount and priority dates of pending demand and year-to-date number use, a different cut-off date could be applied to each oversubscribed country, for the purpose of assuring that the maximum amount of available numbers will be used. Note that a cut-off date imposed to control the use of “otherwise unused” numbers could be earlier than the cut-off date established to control number use under a quarterly or per-country annual limit. For example, at present the India Employment Second preference cut-off date governs the use of numbers under Section 202(a)(5), India having reached its Employment Second annual limit; the China Employment Second preference cut-off date governs number use under the quarterly limit, since China has not yet reached its Employment Second annual limit.
The rate of number use under Section 202(a)(5) is continually monitored to determine whether subsequent adjustments are needed in visa availability for the oversubscribed countries. This helps assure that all available Employment preference numbers will be used, while insuring that numbers also remain available for applicants from all other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit.
As mentioned earlier, the number of applicants who may be “upgrading” their status from Employment Third to Employment Second preference is unknown. As a result, the cut-off date which governs use of Section 202(a)(5) numbers has been advanced more rapidly than normal, in an attempt to ascertain the amount of “upgrade” demand in the pipeline while at the same time administering use of the available numbers. This action risks a surge in demand that could adversely impact the cut-off date later in the fiscal year. However, it also limits the possibility that potential demand would not materialize and the annual limit would not be reached due to lack of cut-off date movement.
hair hair hot girls wallpaper. hot
immi_seeker
07-14 05:11 PM
Talked to both L1 & L2 officers in uscis. They have no idea whether this is an error or not. All they can tell is that it is the adjudicating officers who decide on the extension period. They advised me to send back the original cards with a new application to fix the error. I talked to my attorney and we are not going to do that. We will send an application to extend this EAD card before it expires.
more...
xgoogle
08-25 02:08 PM
bump
hot Hot Girls Wallpapers Download
vandanaverdia
11-14 10:15 PM
bump
more...
house Hot Girls Wallpapers
Mahatma
08-15 09:56 AM
Welcome VDL Rao and continue to bless us through your wisdom.
Sorry if somebody offended you knowingly or unknowingly.
The best parameter of your recognition is: so many people wait to hear your words.
Please make it a routene to enlighten us at leat every 15 days about your take on USCIS affairs.
I am pledging to double my recurring contribution for next 3 years.
Regards.
Sorry if somebody offended you knowingly or unknowingly.
The best parameter of your recognition is: so many people wait to hear your words.
Please make it a routene to enlighten us at leat every 15 days about your take on USCIS affairs.
I am pledging to double my recurring contribution for next 3 years.
Regards.
tattoo hot wallpapers. keeley
pani_6
12-07 10:50 PM
Please post the name,PH#,state of the senator..for making it easy for others to call please.....
Row the boat we are almost there
Row the boat we are almost there
more...
pictures sexy n hot wallpapers
lazycis
05-07 01:22 PM
from AC21 memo issued on December 27, 2005
Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?
Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for “same or similar” employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.
So find a new job before I-485 is approved.
Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?
Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for “same or similar” employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.
So find a new job before I-485 is approved.
dresses Hot car wallpaper (Girl)
amit79
04-10 05:00 PM
WASHINGTON � U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced a preliminary number of nearly 163,000 H-1B petitions received during the filing period ending on April 7, 2008. More than 31,200 of those petitions were for the advanced degree category.
I read this as saying this....
The 163k number includes the advance degree number. So it is 132K for general and 31k for advance
Ys, total petitions received are 163,000
I read this as saying this....
The 163k number includes the advance degree number. So it is 132K for general and 31k for advance
Ys, total petitions received are 163,000
more...
makeup hot girls wallpapers.
Googler
06-18 08:23 PM
Instead in CIR Section 531 (COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS) takes away the right for courts to rule on writs of mandamus filings:
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
please please stop reading the old bill
the new one is on the iv home page
or in thomas look at sa.1150 under the s.1358 bill
Thanks for pointing that out Paskal. I stand corrected.
S.A. 1150 Section 216 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:2:./temp/~r110MkRgxl:e138316:) says:
SEC. 216. STREAMLINED PROCESSING OF BACKGROUND CHECKS CONDUCTED FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS.
(a) INFORMATION SHARING; INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--Section 105 (8 U.S.C. 1105) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General shall establish an interagency task force to resolve cases in which an application or petition for an immigration benefit conferred under this Act has been delayed due to an outstanding background check investigation for more than 2 years after the date on which such application or petition was initially filed.
``(2) MEMBERSHIP.--The interagency task force established under paragraph (1) shall include representatives from Federal agencies with immigration, law enforcement, or national security responsibilities under this Act.''.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year, 2008 through 2012 for enhancements to existing systems for conducting background and security checks necessary to support immigration security and orderly processing of applications.
(c) REPORT ON BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the background and security checks conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on behalf of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(2) CONTENT.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a description of the background and security check program;
(B) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays associated with different types of immigration applications;
(C) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays by applicant country of origin; and
(D) the steps that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking to expedite background and security checks that have been pending for more than 180 days.
Doesn't promise any results and it is not clear if this extra appropriations will be used for the much ballyhooed transformation that Michael Cannon says might kick in in 2010, or for clearing the current backlog BUT is much better than trying to take away the right to file mandamus suits. Also leads us to believe that 180 days is the acceptable amount of time for a namecheck.
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
please please stop reading the old bill
the new one is on the iv home page
or in thomas look at sa.1150 under the s.1358 bill
Thanks for pointing that out Paskal. I stand corrected.
S.A. 1150 Section 216 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:2:./temp/~r110MkRgxl:e138316:) says:
SEC. 216. STREAMLINED PROCESSING OF BACKGROUND CHECKS CONDUCTED FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS.
(a) INFORMATION SHARING; INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--Section 105 (8 U.S.C. 1105) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General shall establish an interagency task force to resolve cases in which an application or petition for an immigration benefit conferred under this Act has been delayed due to an outstanding background check investigation for more than 2 years after the date on which such application or petition was initially filed.
``(2) MEMBERSHIP.--The interagency task force established under paragraph (1) shall include representatives from Federal agencies with immigration, law enforcement, or national security responsibilities under this Act.''.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year, 2008 through 2012 for enhancements to existing systems for conducting background and security checks necessary to support immigration security and orderly processing of applications.
(c) REPORT ON BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the background and security checks conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on behalf of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(2) CONTENT.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a description of the background and security check program;
(B) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays associated with different types of immigration applications;
(C) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays by applicant country of origin; and
(D) the steps that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking to expedite background and security checks that have been pending for more than 180 days.
Doesn't promise any results and it is not clear if this extra appropriations will be used for the much ballyhooed transformation that Michael Cannon says might kick in in 2010, or for clearing the current backlog BUT is much better than trying to take away the right to file mandamus suits. Also leads us to believe that 180 days is the acceptable amount of time for a namecheck.
girlfriend hot wallpapers girls.
yabadaba
06-21 09:50 AM
we can only guess
i would assume cases that are not substitute labor, porting priotity date, cross chargeability, clear birth certificates, clear employer verification letter, no namecheck issues, no fingerprinting issues, etc
i would assume cases that are not substitute labor, porting priotity date, cross chargeability, clear birth certificates, clear employer verification letter, no namecheck issues, no fingerprinting issues, etc
hairstyles hot wallpapers girls.
illusions
04-21 02:42 PM
I got the Card Production Ordered e-mail today. No LUD even last night at 1 Am. Only one LUD today. My case is processed at Texas service center. And my receipt date is not with in their processing times.
Good luck to everyone.
Congrats on your approval. I have seen many approvals where the processing time doesn't match and i'm not sure if it's the case that they don't update it or they just process it randomly once the PD becomes current - anybody's guess i would think.
Good luck to everyone.
Congrats on your approval. I have seen many approvals where the processing time doesn't match and i'm not sure if it's the case that they don't update it or they just process it randomly once the PD becomes current - anybody's guess i would think.
morchu
08-01 12:09 AM
There is nothing complicated here.
Put your wifes status as of the 485 filing date. Means if you are filing in July/August this will be H4.
You can travel in H4. Also no problem in changing status to H1 after october 1st. (She have an H1 approval doesnt mean she is NOW in H1 status. Her change of status is approved from Oct 1st). Please remember that if she doesnt start working in H1 on October 1st, technically, she will Neither be in H1 / H4 status on October 1st. Means she might fall under "adjustee" status.
Assuming that your wife starts in H1 status from Oct 1st, there is no problem in travelling in H1. (she might need to get an H1 visa stamp though).
The other option is she can fall under adjustee status and travel in AP, work in EAD.
Also after 485 approval H4 status doesnt get "illegal" it just gets adjusted.
(Well...... nobody can have two statuses at the same time anyway).
Better check with your lawyer. Becuase when you apply for 485 and get approved your wife's H4 status becomes illegal. So don't know exactly about H1 or H4 on advanced parole. Lawyer is the best person for your case.
Put your wifes status as of the 485 filing date. Means if you are filing in July/August this will be H4.
You can travel in H4. Also no problem in changing status to H1 after october 1st. (She have an H1 approval doesnt mean she is NOW in H1 status. Her change of status is approved from Oct 1st). Please remember that if she doesnt start working in H1 on October 1st, technically, she will Neither be in H1 / H4 status on October 1st. Means she might fall under "adjustee" status.
Assuming that your wife starts in H1 status from Oct 1st, there is no problem in travelling in H1. (she might need to get an H1 visa stamp though).
The other option is she can fall under adjustee status and travel in AP, work in EAD.
Also after 485 approval H4 status doesnt get "illegal" it just gets adjusted.
(Well...... nobody can have two statuses at the same time anyway).
Better check with your lawyer. Becuase when you apply for 485 and get approved your wife's H4 status becomes illegal. So don't know exactly about H1 or H4 on advanced parole. Lawyer is the best person for your case.
Life2Live
02-27 04:50 PM
I resubmitted my I-485 petition sometime Nov 2008. So far no receipt, made a query with USCIS. Now I got letter from USCIS saying that they did not found my package, they want me resubmit with all the evidence and previous of copy of application.
We have been planning to go to India and get it stamped since we are in 6th year. My company is such a lowsy company (If god is there, he should punish this BLOOD SUCKING TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY HEAVILY) they will take resubmittal of 485 for another couple of months.
Should I have to wait some more time and just send family for their trip mean time? Write letter to OmBudsman....
We have been planning to go to India and get it stamped since we are in 6th year. My company is such a lowsy company (If god is there, he should punish this BLOOD SUCKING TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY HEAVILY) they will take resubmittal of 485 for another couple of months.
Should I have to wait some more time and just send family for their trip mean time? Write letter to OmBudsman....
No comments:
Post a Comment