srisra
02-01 09:19 AM
Congrats...
wallpaper spanish love poems with
Berkeleybee
05-17 01:22 PM
BerkeleyBee,
Thanks for opening a seperate thread for this.
Looking at the proceedings for the last 2 days i feel those opposed to immigration r using the delaying tactic to somwhow push out and kill the bill. It also looks like some form of the bill will come out eventually.
There are enough provisions in the bill which will have a significant effect on retrogression when it becomes a law.
As the bill progresses in the senate and in the conference, they may push out the effective date ( for the bill to become a law) to get the house aboard.
I wonder if we can ask for some non controversial portions of the bill such as capturing unused VISA numbers (they must be 90K) to become law immediatly. This will ease retrogression significantly as there will be no country limits for those numbers.
Can we ask any Senator to bring such an amendment.
(remember those who r here illegally and who need to wait for 8 years to apply for G.C can wait an year more. Need i say about those stuck in the Employment based categories.)
--MC
Mchundi,
I understand your anxiety. To answer your questions:
There is no chance of having any single set of provisions "become law immediately."
Unfortunately, we have to let this current round of discussions on CIR play out. What should we root for? That amendments to the current CIR that basically gut the bill fail. If the bill survives these amendments then we stand a good chance of succeeding in our efforts.
For strategic reasons, we cannot disclose everything we know about behind the scenes agreements.
Hang in there!
best,
Berkeleybee
Thanks for opening a seperate thread for this.
Looking at the proceedings for the last 2 days i feel those opposed to immigration r using the delaying tactic to somwhow push out and kill the bill. It also looks like some form of the bill will come out eventually.
There are enough provisions in the bill which will have a significant effect on retrogression when it becomes a law.
As the bill progresses in the senate and in the conference, they may push out the effective date ( for the bill to become a law) to get the house aboard.
I wonder if we can ask for some non controversial portions of the bill such as capturing unused VISA numbers (they must be 90K) to become law immediatly. This will ease retrogression significantly as there will be no country limits for those numbers.
Can we ask any Senator to bring such an amendment.
(remember those who r here illegally and who need to wait for 8 years to apply for G.C can wait an year more. Need i say about those stuck in the Employment based categories.)
--MC
Mchundi,
I understand your anxiety. To answer your questions:
There is no chance of having any single set of provisions "become law immediately."
Unfortunately, we have to let this current round of discussions on CIR play out. What should we root for? That amendments to the current CIR that basically gut the bill fail. If the bill survives these amendments then we stand a good chance of succeeding in our efforts.
For strategic reasons, we cannot disclose everything we know about behind the scenes agreements.
Hang in there!
best,
Berkeleybee
Hello_Hello
11-30 09:48 PM
I have no idea what Mr. Chopra is talking about, as far as I know US administration has become more foreigner unfriendly in last 10 years and Obama administration is even worse. i don't know of 1 friendly law passed in last decade.
The Startup Case For Immigration Reform - Maureen Farrell - Scaling Up - Forbes (http://blogs.forbes.com/maureenfarrell/2010/11/23/startups%E2%80%99-case-for-immigration/?boxes=Homepagechannels)
The United States� Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra says President Obama has tried to lower administrative barriers for bringing foreign nationals into the US for professional development. �In his first year the President wanted to make sure scientists around the world who wanted to visit the US to participate in conferences and seminars could do that,� says Chopra. �We have streamlined that process and efforts so they can participate in ways that are a lot more friendly to their participation.�
�
The Startup Case For Immigration Reform - Maureen Farrell - Scaling Up - Forbes (http://blogs.forbes.com/maureenfarrell/2010/11/23/startups%E2%80%99-case-for-immigration/?boxes=Homepagechannels)
The United States� Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra says President Obama has tried to lower administrative barriers for bringing foreign nationals into the US for professional development. �In his first year the President wanted to make sure scientists around the world who wanted to visit the US to participate in conferences and seminars could do that,� says Chopra. �We have streamlined that process and efforts so they can participate in ways that are a lot more friendly to their participation.�
�
2011 love poems in spanish for her.
waitingnwaiting
02-11 12:00 PM
I suggest IV not sharing any more information to free members like us. Sensitive information should not be shared. Even anti immigrants read our forums. We will know if IV thinks it is okay to share. Let people who give their time and money to IV to help us have it as an incentive for helping all of us. Getting a bill passed is more important than knowing about the bill.
more...
leo2606
10-13 10:14 PM
Probably the consulate people will think the candidate as Fidel Castro's brother are something if you wear red.:confused:
Are you serious or kidding?
Just Kidding - as long as you are wearing decent clothes no one should reject your visa (which otherwise should have been approved) for wearing a jeans or for not wearing formal dress.
But when someone created a thread for this - let me share "one dress" people shouldn't wear.- this is something you would want to avoid, this was told to me 9yrs back when i first came to this country and appeared for Interview first time.
That dress is - "Red Shirt"
Hope this helps !
Are you serious or kidding?
Just Kidding - as long as you are wearing decent clothes no one should reject your visa (which otherwise should have been approved) for wearing a jeans or for not wearing formal dress.
But when someone created a thread for this - let me share "one dress" people shouldn't wear.- this is something you would want to avoid, this was told to me 9yrs back when i first came to this country and appeared for Interview first time.
That dress is - "Red Shirt"
Hope this helps !
boldm28
06-17 08:27 AM
Years and years of waiting? no kidding. Look at my priority date. And there are people waiting before me. You used a pre-approved labor and have been waiting in the GC queue from what 2006? Dude, in today's world, a reasonable wait for eb3-is anywhere between 10-15 years and eb2 is atleast 5-6 years. I am not mad that you used a pre-approved labor, though in my personal opinion, its a taboo. I am just saying you are lucky enough that you may get your green card much quickly than people like us who have been waiting atleast 8-10 years and trust me, people like your case, usually should be happy.
you got that rite buddy
you got that rite buddy
more...
pd_recapturing
08-05 10:31 PM
One of my friends AOS got rejected just because his attorney rescheduled his interview. Somehow, USCIS local office did not acknowledge his request for interview reschedule and they sent a rejection letter saying that, he did not appear for the interview so they are rejecting his application. So the bottomline is 1) Try your best to not to reschedule it 2) If you have to, make sure that USCIS acknowledges your application to reschedule it.
2010 love poems in spanish for her.
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.
more...
pappu
09-02 06:41 AM
Michael Cutler is a Fellow of the Center for Immigration Studies, a notoriously anti-immigrant organization.
It is part of the John Tanton network of anti-immigrant organizations (includes NumbersUSA, FAIR etc.). See here (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=72)
He is not currently at CIS, he is an ex-employee of the INS, and given his sentiments I am glad he is an ex-employee.
Google the guy, you'll see his rage all over the web.
These hearings were organized by our best friend Sensenbrenner. Other policymakers by now ought to recognize FAIR, NumbersUSA and its ilk what what they are.
best,
Berkeleybee
A while back someone had pointed out this link
http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/uscis.html
this shows what numbersusa has been upto. they are asking uscis employees to privately provide them with information that could help with their anti-immigrant cause.
It is part of the John Tanton network of anti-immigrant organizations (includes NumbersUSA, FAIR etc.). See here (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=72)
He is not currently at CIS, he is an ex-employee of the INS, and given his sentiments I am glad he is an ex-employee.
Google the guy, you'll see his rage all over the web.
These hearings were organized by our best friend Sensenbrenner. Other policymakers by now ought to recognize FAIR, NumbersUSA and its ilk what what they are.
best,
Berkeleybee
A while back someone had pointed out this link
http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/uscis.html
this shows what numbersusa has been upto. they are asking uscis employees to privately provide them with information that could help with their anti-immigrant cause.
hair love poems in spanish for him
i4u
12-22 10:07 AM
permfiling have you got your gc? approved and waiting for the card?
Trying to figure out if all the eb2 05 filers are cleared.
Trying to figure out if all the eb2 05 filers are cleared.
more...
.jpg "love poems in spanish for him.")
rsharma
07-23 09:49 PM
I am a july 2nd 2007 filer with notice date Aug 23rd 2007. In response to my SR, I received the following reply:
"...... There is not currently a visa available to you based upon your country of birth, your employment-based category and your priority date. Your I-485 application cannot be adjudicated until there is a visa available to you. Your case is therefore awaiting visa availability for your category and further review by an Adjudications Officer. ......."
Many people have said that the July 2nd filers cases have been pre-adjudicated.
However the SR response clearly says that my case will not be adjudicated untill visa # will be avalable.
Does anybody know what is meant by pre-adjudication ?
What is difference between adjudication and pre-adjudication?
Thanks in advance for your replies. Any reply will be appreciated specially from the attorneys.
"...... There is not currently a visa available to you based upon your country of birth, your employment-based category and your priority date. Your I-485 application cannot be adjudicated until there is a visa available to you. Your case is therefore awaiting visa availability for your category and further review by an Adjudications Officer. ......."
Many people have said that the July 2nd filers cases have been pre-adjudicated.
However the SR response clearly says that my case will not be adjudicated untill visa # will be avalable.
Does anybody know what is meant by pre-adjudication ?
What is difference between adjudication and pre-adjudication?
Thanks in advance for your replies. Any reply will be appreciated specially from the attorneys.
hot love poems for him from the
jasmin45
02-26 10:55 AM
Congratulations on your GC. Yes, tell your sister to send you the GC by mail. Once you get it, you can get back into the U.S. using your GC. I know few people who have done this. Good luck.
The above said is correct only if you have an approved AP with you.
The above said is correct only if you have an approved AP with you.
more...
house love poems in spanish for him
voldemar
06-22 11:14 AM
Due to time contraints doctor sent me for a chest x-ray and skipped the TB skin test. Chest x-ray came back negative. Question: Is a TB skin test required if a chest x-ray is negative? No remarks were made as to why TB skin test was not given. Should suggest, to a reasonable person, that no active TB is presentI've got a RFE because of that. Now got TB skin test and will do X-Ray again if TB will be positive.
tattoo love poems in spanish for him.
Wendyzhu77
05-21 05:07 PM
This is a very very special case, and using this case to prove the need for maintaining H1 is very shaky.
If the one without valid status is an adult, leaving country will be no good because of the 10+ years out-of-status will lead to a huge bar of visa. So the only point is: the person happen to be under 18 and could have used that to avoid the visa bar. But, HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE A CHILD THAT HAS BEEN OUT OF STATUS FOR 10+ YEARS ???
What's the good of paying to get an edge that you are never going to use? Of course, I definitely see it is good for the lawyer, since applying for H1 is almost 10 times more costly than applying for EAD!
�You don�t need to extend your H-1B status, you�ve got an EAD!� If I read such a statement on a message board, I might understand that since the author was not trained as an immigration attorney, this may seem logical to him. However, when someone who is seeking my advice tells me that his former attorney told me this, I cringe. Why should someone with an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) not use it, but instead keep renewing their H-1B status? Consider this real life example: Last week, an Indian professional had a legal consultation with me. He had been in...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/05/the-importance-of-maintaining-your-h1b-status.html)
If the one without valid status is an adult, leaving country will be no good because of the 10+ years out-of-status will lead to a huge bar of visa. So the only point is: the person happen to be under 18 and could have used that to avoid the visa bar. But, HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE A CHILD THAT HAS BEEN OUT OF STATUS FOR 10+ YEARS ???
What's the good of paying to get an edge that you are never going to use? Of course, I definitely see it is good for the lawyer, since applying for H1 is almost 10 times more costly than applying for EAD!
�You don�t need to extend your H-1B status, you�ve got an EAD!� If I read such a statement on a message board, I might understand that since the author was not trained as an immigration attorney, this may seem logical to him. However, when someone who is seeking my advice tells me that his former attorney told me this, I cringe. Why should someone with an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) not use it, but instead keep renewing their H-1B status? Consider this real life example: Last week, an Indian professional had a legal consultation with me. He had been in...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/05/the-importance-of-maintaining-your-h1b-status.html)
more...
pictures love poems for him in spanish.
sush
10-02 08:21 PM
Service Center: Texas
Type: Regular
Category: EB2
Filing Type: non-concurrent
USCIS Receipt Date: 26 May 2006
RFE: no
I-140 Status: Case received and pending
Approval/Denial Date: N/A
Nationality: India
Tried to upgrade to PP on June 18th but no response from USCIS.
Received a letter after my attorney's enquiry that it is in a background check.
been near 500 days... :confused::mad:
Type: Regular
Category: EB2
Filing Type: non-concurrent
USCIS Receipt Date: 26 May 2006
RFE: no
I-140 Status: Case received and pending
Approval/Denial Date: N/A
Nationality: India
Tried to upgrade to PP on June 18th but no response from USCIS.
Received a letter after my attorney's enquiry that it is in a background check.
been near 500 days... :confused::mad:
dresses love poems for him from the
.jpg "poems for him in spanish; love")
srarao
07-19 02:30 PM
Hi All,
My skin test was positive, where as my x-ray was normal.Incase I get an RFE , Can I go to my PCP or need to go only to local health dept.
Can some body guide me
-Srarao
$100-so far
My skin test was positive, where as my x-ray was normal.Incase I get an RFE , Can I go to my PCP or need to go only to local health dept.
Can some body guide me
-Srarao
$100-so far
more...
makeup i love u poems for her. i love
newbie123
11-21 02:25 AM
I have similar question as the last one from bhayzone.
+ Myself on H1-B and wife on H4.
+ Both visas are expired now. Have got the new I797s (new expiry in 2011) and planning to go to India in Jan 2010 to get the new visa stamps.
+ But we are planning to apply for my wife's F1 visa instead of renewing her H4.
+ I have my got my I140 approved.
So my question is -
+ Can we schedule our visa interview appointment together - me for H1-B stamping and my wife for F1 stamping?
+ Is it risky to go together?
+ If for some reasons, my wife's F1 application gets rejected, will there be any problem in again applying for her H4 renewal/stamping?
Will appreciate any/all advice.
Regards,
N.
+ Myself on H1-B and wife on H4.
+ Both visas are expired now. Have got the new I797s (new expiry in 2011) and planning to go to India in Jan 2010 to get the new visa stamps.
+ But we are planning to apply for my wife's F1 visa instead of renewing her H4.
+ I have my got my I140 approved.
So my question is -
+ Can we schedule our visa interview appointment together - me for H1-B stamping and my wife for F1 stamping?
+ Is it risky to go together?
+ If for some reasons, my wife's F1 application gets rejected, will there be any problem in again applying for her H4 renewal/stamping?
Will appreciate any/all advice.
Regards,
N.
girlfriend love poems for her from him.
arsh007
01-31 08:52 AM
I agree. UnitedNations has been tirelessly providing inputs to a lot of GC cases especially the 3 year degree issues on http://www.immigration.com. His vast knowledge in these areas can surely serve as a valuable knowledge base for potential and current GC applicants. I have been following his posts on http://www.immigratio.com for around 2 years now and his inputs has benefited me in take proactive measures for my employment based GC appliction. Hope we can continue giving his valuable advice on this forum too.
hairstyles love poems in spanish for him.
ash0210
07-18 11:21 AM
My GC is approved but still I want to continue my contribution (in steps of $20) for this good cause....However, I dont see any $20 contributions for last couple of weeks..Is it possible to start contribution of $20 for guy like me who have GC & wants to help for this cause?
xbohdpukc
04-06 11:12 PM
The faces from both sides - Major Lead and Minor Lead was looked as they didn't reach any agreement :( Frist was talking (number of times) about "Border Security Bill" at the end ...
that's the official title of the bill, nothing wrong with it.
they still have a cloture motion vote tomorrow morning, so we'll see.
that's the official title of the bill, nothing wrong with it.
they still have a cloture motion vote tomorrow morning, so we'll see.
lskreddy
11-10 02:58 PM
The answer is no, she cannot volunteer. Community service is probably all one can do but any others that potentially can be perceived as displacement of US worker is certainly a no-no. In the proposed case, it can be construed as such.
Having said all this, its tough to interpret what actually is and is not true.
Having said all this, its tough to interpret what actually is and is not true.
No comments:
Post a Comment