Tuesday, June 14, 2011

1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo For Sale

images 1979 Chevy Monte Carlo 2Dr 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo For Sale. 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo 5.0
  • 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo 5.0



  • gccovet
    09-25 10:57 AM
    good one!!!

    Fastest way in NIW or Investor quota(1 mil $$)
    GCCovet.





    wallpaper 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo 5.0 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo For Sale. 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo
  • 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo



  • green_mile
    10-04 02:09 PM
    Is it advisable to put in a big % of your income into the retirement account. There seems to be a nearly 30% early withdrawal loss if you ever were to pull money early out of that prior to 60 years of age. So basically your own money will be lost.
    Any ideas on this issue? It is not that I am planning to withdraw early but just for information purpose.

    1)If you have a company match(if you contribute certain percentage company also contributes certain percentage towards the account) then it is wise to put money in 401K.
    If not given the crappy funds offered by the 401K plan provider it is not a good idea.

    2)Also don't go overboard with this 401K , don't put too much money , if you still want to invest there are other vehicles like Roth IRA.

    3)Talk to qualified financial adviser instead of seeking advice from annonymous folks, especially when it comes to your money.





    1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo For Sale. Used Chevrolet Monte Carlo
  • Used Chevrolet Monte Carlo



  • immi_enthu
    09-28 04:51 PM
    Q : Is USCIS prioritizing certain application(s) during the receipting process?

    Yes. The Application to Adjust Status (I-485) will have first priority because USCIS needs to ensure that these applications are receipted in a timeframe that would allow processing of an application for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) within 90 days of filing as mandated by law [8 CFR 247a.13(d)]. Our second priority will be to receipt the Application for Naturalization (N-400) so that we can minimize any delays in obtaining citizenship.


    I am sure USCIS will break this law on numerous counts on Oct 1st as all the July 2nd filers will have past 90 days on that day.





    2011 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo For Sale. 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo
  • 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo



  • joeshmoe
    09-04 11:22 AM
    Fellows in pain ...

    It's been horribly long 10 years and many complications along the way but my journey seemed to have reached the end. This morning I got a magically enchanted email:

    Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
    Current Status: Card production ordered.

    I am still at awe and can't believe ... probably will never do until I get the physical card.

    For those interested:
    EB3 ROW - Dec 2004 (first application was April 2001)
    I filed 765 and 485 in June of this year



    more...


    1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo For Sale. 1979 CHEVROLET MONTE CARLO
  • 1979 CHEVROLET MONTE CARLO



  • insbaby
    07-17 08:02 AM
    Hello freinds :

    I would appreciate if anyone can guide me through the situation I am in. I have been working for a company for past 4yrs. After the July bulletin was released on June 15, my employer has stopped responding to my emails, voicemails and registered mails by normal post. When I try to reach him on the telephone his voicemail message says that he is travelling and not to leave any voicemail messages but to email him and he will respond when he gets a chance. When I email him I get an out of office response. There are two other people working in the same company. I sent emails to these people and also left voicemail messages but they are also not responding.

    This has put me in a very difficult situation as I dont know what is the status of my H1B application which expired recently. They were supposed to extend it. They are also not telling me the status of I140 application. My labor PD is June 2004. I would like to file the I485 application if USCIS reverses their decision.


    Has anyone been throught the same or similar situation ?


    This is my third employer and third GC attempt in the 11yrs I have been in this country.

    Buddy, I am sorry for your situatiuon. It looks like you thought everything is employer's responsibility. They don't move even a small piece for you unless you follow up in time.

    You said, your H1B expired recently (!!!!). You must have known that the H1B petition can be filed for extension 180 days before. Also, you must have read that how much time each procession center takes for this extension of H1B (min 6 months). In such case, did you ask the employer to extend the H1B in FEBRUARY? If they have applied, then they should have got an "Recepit Notice", which makes your stay VALID. If they have received something else, they should have let you know, because "IT CREATES BIG PROBLEM FOR THEM TO KEEP SOMEONE with H1B EXPIRED". So, it looks like, your petition went ok and your are now SAFE.

    If you have given pressure to your employer the day before the H1B expires, (sorry to say this) it is your problem, not theirs. Their job is not looking at your expiration of H1B, it is your. This often happens in small companies, big companies usually have HRD, who takes care of this issues in time.

    On I-140 approval: If I assume your company is fairly small, then you can not avoid interacting with the lawer while filing such things. (Usually there is not anyone doing this job, but you do, sending documents, confirmations to lawer). In such case, CALL THE LAWER for the status or your petition reference number to check online.

    It is very uncommon a lawer is instructed by the company not to provide information, it makes the small companies life easy if you deal directly with the lawer.

    So there are ways to solve the problem in time without bugging the Employer with no ears. Move fast and file your 485 before end of july !!!!! :cool:





    1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo For Sale. 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo
  • 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo



  • digitalborealis
    01-10 02:14 AM
    Hello All
    Similar experience at Mumbai Consulate. Being a full time employee, and after showing all paystubs, employment letter , VO was not satisfied. 1/2 of the time , he was under impression that I was still working for a company, whose visa was stamped in 2008. :)

    Another reason of frustration is they did not check all the documents I sent , which were mentioned in the green slip. Inspite of sending Research Document, I had got the reply saying that I did not send the Past, Current and Future Research Statement. So I resubmitted all the documents again on Dec 23rd,2010 . also added I am not working on any research topic presently or in near future . After that I did not hear back from consulate. So that means my case has been under processing?

    Did anyone get the receipt of documents submission in response to Green Slip?

    Please let me know

    Thanks and Good LUCK

    D



    more...


    1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo For Sale. 1979-1983 Chevrolet Monte
  • 1979-1983 Chevrolet Monte



  • gckosam
    08-09 07:04 PM
    for every 6 months from Jan 2004 till June 2008. That will give the overall idea on how EB3 trend is going on.





    2010 Used Chevrolet Monte Carlo 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo For Sale. 1979 Chevy Monte Carlo 2Dr
  • 1979 Chevy Monte Carlo 2Dr



  • gconmymind
    07-29 02:51 PM
    Are you sure Systems Analyst and Director of Development are considered "similar" jobs? To me it does not sound like similar jobs. Systems Analyst is a technical job whereas Director is purely managerial position.

    Let me know if you have documentation on "same/similar".



    more...


    1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo For Sale. 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo
  • 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo



  • abhi_jais
    12-09 12:03 PM
    abhi_jais:

    Delhi embassy called me for re interview on Nov 10th and issued me the visa.

    Best of luck to you.

    Thanks man, Actually my wife is stuck there because of this stupid 221G green slip. She went for H1-B stamping. VO has requested for some company papers like details of every employee in the company (Immigration and Wage) etc. Anyways, where did you track the status of your case? Please post the link if you can.

    --Abhishek Jaiswal





    hair 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo For Sale. Its ready to Sale
  • Its ready to Sale



  • psn1975
    11-05 08:06 PM
    Hi

    I my PD is July 2003 EB3 (India).

    My I140 was approved in 2006 and had applied for 485, EAD, A/P in July 2007 like most of you. Yesterday LUD on my approved I140 and 485, EAD, A/P applications in USCIS changed after months. But now my approved I140 status has changed to Case received and pending.
    What is even more surprising is that it also says On April XX, 2008, we received this I140 IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER... This is incorrect since i got the approval notice in Nov 2006.

    I have NOT done any labor substitution or anything like that.

    As usually our corporate lawyer and HR were useless and think this is just some system issue at USCIS. Did anyone else see this before? I was looking for other threads but couldn't find anyone else having similar issues.

    Immigration gurus - any suggestions/comments? Is this normal?

    Thanks!



    more...


    1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo For Sale. 1979 Chevy Monte Carlo - $1200
  • 1979 Chevy Monte Carlo - $1200



  • dupedinjuly
    07-15 02:07 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/us/politics/15immig.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

    A Little-Known Group Claims a Victory on Immigration

    July 15, 2007
    A Little-Known Group Claims a Victory on Immigration
    By ROBERT PEAR
    WASHINGTON, July 14 � When a comprehensive immigration bill collapsed last month on the Senate floor, it was a victory for a small group that had been lobbying Congress for a decade to reduce the number of immigrants � legal and illegal � in the United States.

    The group, Numbers USA, tracked every twist and turn of the bill. Its members flooded the Senate with more than a million faxes, sent through the organization�s Web site. It supplied arguments and information to senators opposing the bill.

    �It was a David-and-Goliath struggle,� said Roy H. Beck, the president of Numbers USA, who had been preparing for this moment since 1996, when he wrote a book titled �The Case Against Immigration.�

    Supporters of the bill included President Bush, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the high-tech industry, the Roman Catholic Church, many Hispanic organizations, farmers, restaurants, hotels and the construction industry.

    �The bill had support from the opinion elite in this country,� Mr. Beck said. �But we built a grass-roots army, consumed with passion for a cause, and used the power of the Internet to go around the elites and defeat a disastrous amnesty bill.�

    The measure, which died on June 28, would have offered legal status and a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants and created a new temporary worker program while increasing border security.

    �Numbers USA initiated and turbocharged the populist revolt against the immigration reform package,� said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigrant advocacy group. �Roy Beck takes people who are upset about illegal immigration for different reasons, including hostility to Latino immigrants, and disciplines them so their message is based on policy rather than race-based arguments or xenophobia.�

    Representative Brian P. Bilbray, Republican of California and chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, said, �We�re involved in weekly discussions with Numbers USA and other immigration-control groups as part of a team effort.�

    Numbers USA had fewer than 50,000 members at the end of 2004, but now counts more than 447,000, with an increase of 83 percent since January alone.

    Turning to the next phase of the debate, those members will push for enforcement of existing laws and new measures to curb the employment of illegal immigrants.

    �Our No. 1 legislative goal is to begin a system of mandatory workplace verification, to confirm that every employee is a United States citizen or an alien authorized to work in this country,� said Rosemary E. Jenks, director of government relations at Numbers USA.

    The organization wants to reduce immigration � as Mr. Beck says in the subtitle of his book � for �moral, economic, social and environmental reasons.�

    He contends that immigrants and their children are driving population growth, which he says is gobbling up open space, causing urban sprawl and creating more traffic congestion.

    Moreover, Mr. Beck asserts that immigrants and temporary workers, by increasing the supply of labor, have depressed wages in industries from meatpacking to information technology. Numbers USA has worked most closely with conservative Republicans, but in recent weeks has built alliances with Democrats who share the concern.

    Numbers USA keeps a scorecard showing every vote by every member of Congress on immigration-related issues since 1989. The group assigns a letter grade to each member.

    Lawmakers who received an A-plus were all Republicans and included Representatives J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois and Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a presidential candidate. The lowest grades � F-minuses � went to Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative Joe Baca of California, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

    Numbers USA objects to proposals that increase the number of legal or illegal immigrants. It steers clear of debates over the allocation of visas.

    �It does not matter to us whether a visa goes to a high-tech worker, a farm worker or the sibling of a U.S. citizen,� Mr. Beck said.

    Numbers USA is one of many organizations fostered by John H. Tanton, an ophthalmologist from Michigan who has also championed efforts to protect the environment, limit population growth and promote English as an official language.

    Critics like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Representative Chris Cannon, Republican of Utah, have described Dr. Tanton as a father of the anti-immigration movement. Mark A. Potok, a senior researcher at the law center, called Numbers USA the �kinder, gentler side of that movement.�

    Mr. Beck said Numbers USA had been independent of Dr. Tanton since 2002. On the group�s Web site, Mr. Beck cautions against �immigrant bashing� and says, �Even illegal aliens deserve humane treatment as they are detected, detained and deported.�

    In the fight over the Senate bill, Numbers USA had daily conference calls with conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Eagle Forum.

    For tax purposes, Numbers USA has two arms, an educational foundation and an advocacy group that lobbies Congress. Together, Mr. Beck said, they have a budget of $3 million this year, but will probably raise and spend $4.5 million.

    Mr. Beck said that in the past the group received about two-thirds of its money from foundations like the Colcom Foundation of Pittsburgh and the Weeden Foundation in New York. Many of these foundations have an interest in conservation.

    Numbers USA has raised the rest of its money from individual contributors over the Internet. The group collects detailed information on its members � their ethnic background, politics, religious affiliations, occupations and concerns � so it can choose the most effective advocates on any particular issue.

    In a survey question on religion, the group said the information would be useful because many lawmakers were likely to respond better to people with �a very similar religious worldview.�

    �This is our citizen army,� Mr. Beck said, pointing to a map that showed members of his group in every Congressional district.



    Home
    World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Automobiles Back to Top
    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company





    hot 1979 CHEVROLET MONTE CARLO 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo For Sale. 1979 CHEVROLET MONTE CARLO
  • 1979 CHEVROLET MONTE CARLO



  • vishalsab2003
    06-26 12:19 PM
    Thanks for your reply, I also recvd my approval last week. Thanks a lot for reply and wish you all the best.



    more...


    house 1979 CHEVROLET MONTE CARLO 3.3L V6 IGNITION COIL MODULE 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo For Sale. 1979 Monte Carlo For Sale
  • 1979 Monte Carlo For Sale



  • GKBest
    12-26 06:31 PM
    Context is very important here. IRS has its own rules, USCIS has got its own and then universities have their own set of rules. I have had a lot of fight with university to get in-state tution fee on H-4 visa. So please explain your context and I can shed some more light on this topic (based on my own experience).

    Can you tell me more about your fight with universities in getting an instate tuition under H-4? My son have been a CA resident for the past 7 years and has studied in CA schools. Doesn't this qualify him for an in-state tuition? What documents does he need to present to the university to show that he is qualified?





    tattoo 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo For Sale. 1979 chevrolet monte carlo 3
  • 1979 chevrolet monte carlo 3



  • rbalaji5
    02-10 01:19 AM
    Thanks all for the very useful informations. Yes - I called the DI office today. As per their instruction, booked the infopass appointment for SFO. I will update the result soon.



    more...


    pictures 1979-1983 Chevrolet Monte 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo For Sale. 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo
  • 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo



  • a1b2c3
    08-05 11:51 AM
    it was pending..pls check the PM I sent you.





    dresses 1979 CHEVROLET MONTE CARLO 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo For Sale. 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo
  • 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo



  • simple1
    05-12 03:07 PM
    Ok, for this Attorney thread, some one is pouring red on me.



    more...


    makeup 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo For Sale. 1979 CHEVROLET MONTE CARLO 3.3L V6 IGNITION COIL MODULE
  • 1979 CHEVROLET MONTE CARLO 3.3L V6 IGNITION COIL MODULE



  • dealsnet
    11-05 10:49 AM
    Your I-485 filing without the dependants is unfortunate. This senario, you need to be in H1 all the time till your PD is current and they are eligible to apply for I-485. Means you can't work on EAD, it will cancel your H1. Always on H1, otherwisw dependents will be out of status. (BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT IN AOS- your case)


    Situation - During the month of July, I filed my 485 when all categories were current. Got my receipt too. Missed wife's application because her papers were not ready. Now priority dates have retrogressed again.

    Saving grace - Our H1/H4 are in order with many long years left on them.

    Question - Can I file my wife 485 now as a dependent, even though "my" PD is not current yet. The core point is that, does the concept of PD applies to the dependent 485 applications too?





    girlfriend 1979 chevrolet monte carlo 3 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo For Sale. 3-D#39;s 1979 Chevrolet Monte
  • 3-D#39;s 1979 Chevrolet Monte



  • go_guy123
    08-24 04:52 PM
    ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)

    Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
    by Cyrus D. Mehta

    As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).

    Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.

    Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.

    A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.

    In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.

    At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�

    The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8

    Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.

    Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10

    �Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�

    Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:

    1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
    2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�

    It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.





    hairstyles 1979 Chevy Monte Carlo - $1200 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo For Sale. 1979 CHEVY MONTE CARLO CONSOLE
  • 1979 CHEVY MONTE CARLO CONSOLE



  • green_card
    07-20 01:58 PM
    stop the guessing game. give some concrete info if you know it or let someone else that knows answer.
    what you believe doesnt amount to a hill of beans. no offense.


    I do not believe they really have time to sort out by priority date if sep'30 is the date they need to get 40K approvals through.





    MeraNaamJoker
    09-16 04:50 PM
    Having stated the above which pretains only to those cases which are still in process.

    For those who have their GC in their hand, the situation could be slightly different.

    If you do not join the company, it is considered as SHAM EMPLOYMENT.

    I am also in the same boat and I checked with a leading lawyer, According to her advice it is better to wait for 6 months or atleast couple of months before changing the employer.

    GCProbs has an advantage here, since the Company A is about to be shut down wait till then. Obtain details about it and keep it with you. Just in the event of a question, you can answer.

    By the way, I have decided to join another company after 2 months.

    Jumping the boat immediately might cause trouble.

    So please be patient and give it as much as time as possible. I will say at least 2-3 months.





    rajutata
    08-25 09:23 AM
    You can apply for visitor visa and visit canada. if you PR is approved before you need to go to Canada, You do not need any visa



    No comments:

    Post a Comment