hariswaminathan
01-10 04:46 PM
I prefer your theory to Infopass officer. Sincerely hope you are right because Name check is not where i want to be stuck in.
So, this would mean anyone stuck in name check should never receive FP--correct? I don't think that's the case...i know of a lot of people who get FP notices every 15 (or is it 18?) months or so and are stuck in name checks forever.
The two processes Name check & FP are parallel, not sequential.
I have myself not rcvd FP - July 2nd filer NSC-CSC-NSC transfer victim :-). My way of looking at things is that CSC transferred I-485 to NSC in late September. So my I-485 is queued after an August 17th filer. August 17th filers have rcvd their FPs recently (Bay Area, CA), so it should not be that far away. (BTW, I am not dying to get FP done, i just want to shorten my stay-alert-for-FP window and get it over with it)
USCIS works in strange ways...i may be using logic that's beyond their IQ :)
Take it easy...
So, this would mean anyone stuck in name check should never receive FP--correct? I don't think that's the case...i know of a lot of people who get FP notices every 15 (or is it 18?) months or so and are stuck in name checks forever.
The two processes Name check & FP are parallel, not sequential.
I have myself not rcvd FP - July 2nd filer NSC-CSC-NSC transfer victim :-). My way of looking at things is that CSC transferred I-485 to NSC in late September. So my I-485 is queued after an August 17th filer. August 17th filers have rcvd their FPs recently (Bay Area, CA), so it should not be that far away. (BTW, I am not dying to get FP done, i just want to shorten my stay-alert-for-FP window and get it over with it)
USCIS works in strange ways...i may be using logic that's beyond their IQ :)
Take it easy...
wallpaper Own Fruit and Vegetables
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
12-06 11:38 AM
There are so many posts already in the forums about these issues. I think you will get all your answers there. Please do not open a new one
chanduv23
03-26 08:58 AM
I used jet last week... 1208$ great food and service.. and the inflight entertainment was awesome !:D
Can u define awsome :D:D:D some thing like hooters airline :D:D - take it easy, just kidding
Can u define awsome :D:D:D some thing like hooters airline :D:D - take it easy, just kidding
2011 Enjoy fresh fruit and veg at
don840
04-10 10:58 AM
bump
more...
vin13
04-09 02:48 PM
The employer has to make sure all their employees are legal. For that they may ask the employee to use EAD. they are not obligated to sponsor H1-B.
Mayra75
01-01 05:59 AM
But the way its worded now, it means no benefit for people who have no master's or Ph.D from US accredited university.
And you have to have 3 year experience to top it. From the wording, it means probably before you filed you I-140, you need to have 3 years of experience in relevant field.
So, there is no hope to people who are waiting for H1 visas to start working before Oct,2006 ? ( too much time ..!)
And you have to have 3 year experience to top it. From the wording, it means probably before you filed you I-140, you need to have 3 years of experience in relevant field.
So, there is no hope to people who are waiting for H1 visas to start working before Oct,2006 ? ( too much time ..!)
more...
mhathi
05-16 11:19 AM
I have called all the members identified on the thread. They
were all nice to talk to and most of them said that they were
receiving a lot of calls regarding these bills. Many completed my
request for me :D
Let's all call and make these bills a reality.
P.S. I also called Sen. Menendez regarding the Murray amendment but
had to leave a voicemail.
were all nice to talk to and most of them said that they were
receiving a lot of calls regarding these bills. Many completed my
request for me :D
Let's all call and make these bills a reality.
P.S. I also called Sen. Menendez regarding the Murray amendment but
had to leave a voicemail.
2010 BASKET WITH FRUIT AND
delhirocks
07-08 04:28 PM
Good Job...
more...
ramus
06-03 02:52 PM
You can call or send email with your personalized message.
What do you think?
Though I sent webfaxes, But I am not very convinced.
Its same text in every fax. Its not personalized.
For senatores it will be a spam kind of thing. So many faxes with just different name but same text.
I am not also happy about language. Its not very effective!!!
What do you think?
Though I sent webfaxes, But I am not very convinced.
Its same text in every fax. Its not personalized.
For senatores it will be a spam kind of thing. So many faxes with just different name but same text.
I am not also happy about language. Its not very effective!!!
hair fruit and vegetable basket
texcan
07-29 10:48 PM
I have a unique problem with possibly getting a green card too early. Please let me know how I can make this situation better. My priority date in EB2 India is in Jan 2006, which means potentially I could get my green card in 2-3 months.
I plan to get engaged in December 2008 and married in December 2009 to an Indian born Australian citizen. As far as I can see, her chargeability would be from India.
What are my options to make my life easier and to be able to successfully bring my future wife to the US the easiest possible way. So far, I have 2 options:
1. Use the special E3 work visa for Australian citizens.
2. If I dont get my GC within the next few months, do an early court marriage and invoke the following-to-join spouse when she is ready to come to the US.
well ...if the option is between "difficult spouse"/"GC " why bother with either....I thought of something else when i saw the title. pls donot mind...
On serious note, Since your spouse is australian citizen you can easily use E3 visa ( its very simple) or better yet just go ahead and marry her in court right away, register marriage and have the big gala family ....marriage event later.
My 2 cents...take it easy and make it simple. Its a happy occasion donot waste time on immigration issue in next few months, enjoy the courtship time...immigration will fall in place and even if not ...life matters.
I plan to get engaged in December 2008 and married in December 2009 to an Indian born Australian citizen. As far as I can see, her chargeability would be from India.
What are my options to make my life easier and to be able to successfully bring my future wife to the US the easiest possible way. So far, I have 2 options:
1. Use the special E3 work visa for Australian citizens.
2. If I dont get my GC within the next few months, do an early court marriage and invoke the following-to-join spouse when she is ready to come to the US.
well ...if the option is between "difficult spouse"/"GC " why bother with either....I thought of something else when i saw the title. pls donot mind...
On serious note, Since your spouse is australian citizen you can easily use E3 visa ( its very simple) or better yet just go ahead and marry her in court right away, register marriage and have the big gala family ....marriage event later.
My 2 cents...take it easy and make it simple. Its a happy occasion donot waste time on immigration issue in next few months, enjoy the courtship time...immigration will fall in place and even if not ...life matters.
more...
prem_goel
01-13 06:56 PM
I have the following visa stampings F1(1998 Chennai), H1B(2002 Chennai), F1(2006 Matamaros) and am currently on H1B (not the 2002 company). Am I eligible for stamping in one of the border posts?
thanks
arun
yes i think so since you have one previous h1b stamping from home country. BUT, you should always check the consulate website for latest rules and info.
thanks
arun
yes i think so since you have one previous h1b stamping from home country. BUT, you should always check the consulate website for latest rules and info.
hot Variety - Fruit Basket
GCMan007
03-12 09:30 PM
Did you get second finger print notice before approval? When did you go for first fingerprint notice?
I did not get a second finger printing notice (yet?). The 485 approval notice said that a biometric appt may be sent or the card will arrive. Just keeping my fingers crossed.
My first FP was done in Dec 2007
I did not get a second finger printing notice (yet?). The 485 approval notice said that a biometric appt may be sent or the card will arrive. Just keeping my fingers crossed.
My first FP was done in Dec 2007
more...
house Fruits and Vegetables in a
kondur_007
03-29 09:12 PM
Thanks you very much for the reply.I appreciate.
Yes, Thats perfectly right.
Extension with Employer A is pending, reason is Security CheckThats what i was told and can't be done any thing untill they get back).
Yeah I am planning to go to India and try to get stamped there. But am just wondering that as the Extension with Employer A is in security check so does this cause any issues/delay in giving Visa in india.
I personally think (I am not a lawyer), the delay with your current employer's (employer A) petition for extension is very likely to be "employer" (who is probably under review) rather than "you". (the reason I believe that is the fact that they approved your H1b with another employer; so if it is security check on "you", that would not have happened.).
So if my assumption is correct, you should not have any trouble in getting visa stamped for "employer B" (new employer, with new H1b approval that you have - the one that came without I94),
Good Luck. (If at all possible, do one consultation with a competent attorney who can review all the facts, trust me, your money will be worth)
Yes, Thats perfectly right.
Extension with Employer A is pending, reason is Security CheckThats what i was told and can't be done any thing untill they get back).
Yeah I am planning to go to India and try to get stamped there. But am just wondering that as the Extension with Employer A is in security check so does this cause any issues/delay in giving Visa in india.
I personally think (I am not a lawyer), the delay with your current employer's (employer A) petition for extension is very likely to be "employer" (who is probably under review) rather than "you". (the reason I believe that is the fact that they approved your H1b with another employer; so if it is security check on "you", that would not have happened.).
So if my assumption is correct, you should not have any trouble in getting visa stamped for "employer B" (new employer, with new H1b approval that you have - the one that came without I94),
Good Luck. (If at all possible, do one consultation with a competent attorney who can review all the facts, trust me, your money will be worth)
tattoo yarny fruits and vegetables
usirit
10-28 08:15 AM
Sorry you had trouble finding the location. The intersection of roads was the nearest I could suggest.
Two of is. infact three including Ulises wife Dana were there. The Starbucks we were at was next to Panera Bread on the corner near a large Kohls store and Walmart.
Once again I am sorry not to have had the chance to meet you today.
Please feel free to send me a PM, give me a telephone number and I will call you.
Hey DPP...
I am sorry you didn't make it... meeting with Lynne was so enriching, I am sure we'll have more meetings to keep setting up our Chapter to promote solutions for all of us.
Lynne:
Thanks again for taking the lead of this campaign... Let me know if there is something that I ca do to assist you. I'll get back to you later if there is something in my end.
Two of is. infact three including Ulises wife Dana were there. The Starbucks we were at was next to Panera Bread on the corner near a large Kohls store and Walmart.
Once again I am sorry not to have had the chance to meet you today.
Please feel free to send me a PM, give me a telephone number and I will call you.
Hey DPP...
I am sorry you didn't make it... meeting with Lynne was so enriching, I am sure we'll have more meetings to keep setting up our Chapter to promote solutions for all of us.
Lynne:
Thanks again for taking the lead of this campaign... Let me know if there is something that I ca do to assist you. I'll get back to you later if there is something in my end.
more...
pictures Assorted fruits and vegetables
Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
dresses Fruits and Vegetables Basket. By admin on December 29th, 2010
neelu
07-09 12:33 PM
I dont think the exam results "expire". My guess is that they misplaced your wife's results/paperwork or something like that.
Another explanation is that they wanted confirmation of your wife's results.
These days Medical RFEs are very common. No one really knows why they ask these sometimes.
But get another medical checkup done and send it in, and you should be good.
Good Luck.
Both my wife and I applied for our AOS together during the July fiasco. My wife received a RFE for another medical exam today. We both did our medical at the same time and were submitted with the AOS application but only my wife received the RFE for medical. I did receive another RFE but not for medical.
Why would she receive the RFE for medical? Does the medical exam also expire as the finger print does? If it does expire then why would only one of us receive the medical RFE and not the other?
Another explanation is that they wanted confirmation of your wife's results.
These days Medical RFEs are very common. No one really knows why they ask these sometimes.
But get another medical checkup done and send it in, and you should be good.
Good Luck.
Both my wife and I applied for our AOS together during the July fiasco. My wife received a RFE for another medical exam today. We both did our medical at the same time and were submitted with the AOS application but only my wife received the RFE for medical. I did receive another RFE but not for medical.
Why would she receive the RFE for medical? Does the medical exam also expire as the finger print does? If it does expire then why would only one of us receive the medical RFE and not the other?
more...
makeup of fruits and vegetables
a_yaja
04-02 08:33 AM
Thank you guys for helping me.
Could you tell me please if it's ok to write where it's written "purpose of trip"........that I want to travel to visit my parents......is it ok with Uscis if I write that? Or what else should I write.
Thanks again!
On a separate piece of paper, this is exactly what I entered:
"Pending adjustment of status petition. Lengthy adjustment and the need to visit family from time to time."
I self filed for AP for my spouse and myself and we got it approved without any problem.
Could you tell me please if it's ok to write where it's written "purpose of trip"........that I want to travel to visit my parents......is it ok with Uscis if I write that? Or what else should I write.
Thanks again!
On a separate piece of paper, this is exactly what I entered:
"Pending adjustment of status petition. Lengthy adjustment and the need to visit family from time to time."
I self filed for AP for my spouse and myself and we got it approved without any problem.
girlfriend Wicker asket with fruits and
chanduv23
04-21 03:11 PM
Gurus,
I went to infopass today. Last time when I went infopass in Oct 08, I was told that my namecheck is pending. I wanted to see whether any progress has been made on that,so took an infopass. When I asked the IO about the status of my namecheck, I was told that one namecheck is clear but the other is pending. I specifically asked her to look by my A # as I thought she might be referring to dependants namecheck status. But she replied back stating that there could be multiple namechecks for an individual and it is not unusual for some individuals to have three, four namechecks. And in my case as one of them is clear, they probably will go with cleared one.
Now I am confused. Can there be multiple namechecks initiated at around the same timeframe? I was told both the namechecks were initiated in 07.
If you think the infopass was not very helpful and need more information - usually you can try going through your congressman's offiice. You can either visit them or call them and write a letter explaining your problem and confusion. Some of these offices will ask you to fill out a form that deals with privacy act. These offices can help give you exact status of your case.
Alternately, if you thhink IO at infopass was not being hepful, you may want to contact the Ombudsman's office, they also try to help in such cases.
I went to infopass today. Last time when I went infopass in Oct 08, I was told that my namecheck is pending. I wanted to see whether any progress has been made on that,so took an infopass. When I asked the IO about the status of my namecheck, I was told that one namecheck is clear but the other is pending. I specifically asked her to look by my A # as I thought she might be referring to dependants namecheck status. But she replied back stating that there could be multiple namechecks for an individual and it is not unusual for some individuals to have three, four namechecks. And in my case as one of them is clear, they probably will go with cleared one.
Now I am confused. Can there be multiple namechecks initiated at around the same timeframe? I was told both the namechecks were initiated in 07.
If you think the infopass was not very helpful and need more information - usually you can try going through your congressman's offiice. You can either visit them or call them and write a letter explaining your problem and confusion. Some of these offices will ask you to fill out a form that deals with privacy act. These offices can help give you exact status of your case.
Alternately, if you thhink IO at infopass was not being hepful, you may want to contact the Ombudsman's office, they also try to help in such cases.
hairstyles Fruit and Vegetable Basket
Munna Bhai
01-09 01:14 PM
Mine is Feb 2007 NSC. I-140 got RFE on Oct will be replying sometime this week.
Looks like they may work on May 2007 cases sometime this month occording to NSC progress.
please share your inputs
Looks like they may work on May 2007 cases sometime this month occording to NSC progress.
please share your inputs
Rb_newsletter
01-07 08:36 PM
I found this article in imminfo.com. I could not understand the below line in legal sense. Does this line means that delayed registration of birth is not acceptable?
ImmInfo Newsletter: Required Supporting Documents: Birth Records (http://imminfo.com/News/Newsletter/2010-1/required_supporting_documents_birth_record.html)
Delayed birth certificates are also not considered as conclusive evidence of birth.
ImmInfo Newsletter: Required Supporting Documents: Birth Records (http://imminfo.com/News/Newsletter/2010-1/required_supporting_documents_birth_record.html)
Delayed birth certificates are also not considered as conclusive evidence of birth.
arc
04-13 06:48 PM
Call it a low hanging fruit or Optimistic people's power of attraction...
Someone I know eb3I PD 2k3 got GC 6 Mos back, I know them personaly - first hand info.
Problem is they do not report it on froum or tracker, and leave the forum for ever... because they know there will be a lot of people asking questions or making them miserable by trying to prove them wrong... go figure...
Be + ive...
True Story!!!:cool:
Someone I know eb3I PD 2k3 got GC 6 Mos back, I know them personaly - first hand info.
Problem is they do not report it on froum or tracker, and leave the forum for ever... because they know there will be a lot of people asking questions or making them miserable by trying to prove them wrong... go figure...
Be + ive...
True Story!!!:cool:
No comments:
Post a Comment