Jimi_Hendrix
11-28 10:21 AM
Just because you get more visa numbers does not guarantee gc. USCIS efficiency is going down the drain.
wallpaper Hayabusa Wallpapers.
smuggymba
10-05 11:00 AM
^^
they did that in 1996 and all this EB3 backlog is a result of that Z visa.Mnay of them have GC now.
Do you guys know if there is any restrictions on which employer to work for on Z visa and whether there are any travel restrictions?
they did that in 1996 and all this EB3 backlog is a result of that Z visa.Mnay of them have GC now.
Do you guys know if there is any restrictions on which employer to work for on Z visa and whether there are any travel restrictions?
brb2
09-21 02:26 PM
As I see it, the 7% cap is nothing but a clear case of affirmative action on a global scale. Republicans would definitely support removing this cap if the debate was framed in this angle rather than to give relief to any particular country. Relief is to the business's in the US - the freedom for them to hire the best in the world not to forced in to affirmative action due to quotas in high skilled immigration.
without rising the current cap, increasing existing 7% limit will only lead to a worse retrogression in the ROW category.
without rising the current cap, increasing existing 7% limit will only lead to a worse retrogression in the ROW category.
2011 35 Super Fast Suzuki Hayabusa
franklin
09-05 05:24 PM
Well, right now it is all "U" on the visa bulletin, you are right. But I assure you that come October and the following months there will be visas for our Egyptian friend and ROW.
No, EB3 ROW has been retrogressed for years. I HIGHLY doubt that this will change dramatically come October. As everyone knows, the common assumption is that Priority dates will be similar to January of this year, which means that EB3 ROW PD will be 01AUG02
Please get your facts straight, this is disinformation.
Your friends that you refer to must not have been EB3, it is highly unlikely that they got their greencards in under a year if they were. Since the OP didn't say what category they were in, we have to think about all possibilities.
No, EB3 ROW has been retrogressed for years. I HIGHLY doubt that this will change dramatically come October. As everyone knows, the common assumption is that Priority dates will be similar to January of this year, which means that EB3 ROW PD will be 01AUG02
Please get your facts straight, this is disinformation.
Your friends that you refer to must not have been EB3, it is highly unlikely that they got their greencards in under a year if they were. Since the OP didn't say what category they were in, we have to think about all possibilities.
more...
gcisadawg
02-03 02:09 PM
Hi
I hold a H1b Visa but did not work after coming to US.
Can anybody guide me regarding my current status.
My H1 was approved in 2007 quota and i entered US in march 2008..but was not successful in getting a job and my employer is not running any payroll..
can anybody help me with this??
thankyou
RUN buddy RUN! This forum is for LEGAL immigrants trying to get their employment based green cards. There are people from EB3 with PD from 2001 ( yeah, TWO THOUSAND AND ONE) who are maintaining their EB status diligently by having a steady job and waiting and waiting and waiting for their GC to come.
Now, you coolly come and say what you have just said and have the gall to ask for advice.
The same applies to other poster 'nehas' also who had a similar question.
Thanks,
GCisaDawg
I hold a H1b Visa but did not work after coming to US.
Can anybody guide me regarding my current status.
My H1 was approved in 2007 quota and i entered US in march 2008..but was not successful in getting a job and my employer is not running any payroll..
can anybody help me with this??
thankyou
RUN buddy RUN! This forum is for LEGAL immigrants trying to get their employment based green cards. There are people from EB3 with PD from 2001 ( yeah, TWO THOUSAND AND ONE) who are maintaining their EB status diligently by having a steady job and waiting and waiting and waiting for their GC to come.
Now, you coolly come and say what you have just said and have the gall to ask for advice.
The same applies to other poster 'nehas' also who had a similar question.
Thanks,
GCisaDawg
gondalguru
07-19 10:39 AM
Thansk for your reply. In the Residency application(ERAS), there are two categories:
1) Visa - J1, H1, EAD etc
2) No Visa requirement - Green Card/US Citizen.
If we check EAD, they will think that we need a visa which we don't
If we check Green Card, technically we do not have our green cards yet
What is the best thing to do?
Check green card. and clarify later with hospital that no visa needed as u have valid EAD.
1) Visa - J1, H1, EAD etc
2) No Visa requirement - Green Card/US Citizen.
If we check EAD, they will think that we need a visa which we don't
If we check Green Card, technically we do not have our green cards yet
What is the best thing to do?
Check green card. and clarify later with hospital that no visa needed as u have valid EAD.
more...
Blog Feeds
10-15 06:30 PM
[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
2010 hayabusa wallpapers 2010,
saveimmigration
10-12 11:53 AM
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5joRRCZn_Du7r-_F3AFHt3eicyQ1gD93IMS1O0
more...
glus
09-24 09:00 AM
Usually it comes to lawyer.
hair Ryu Hayabusa wallpaper
jayleno
04-24 09:41 AM
Guys,
A few days back my wife got the same RFE. Except we were asked to sumbit different evidence like joint back account, joint tax filings, joint residency, insurance on which both names are listed etc.
Looks like its getting very common to request this evidence recently.
A few days back my wife got the same RFE. Except we were asked to sumbit different evidence like joint back account, joint tax filings, joint residency, insurance on which both names are listed etc.
Looks like its getting very common to request this evidence recently.
more...
gcgreen
07-22 02:31 AM
Quoting the AC21 memo:
"Adjudicators SHOULD NOT PRESUME ABSENCE OF SUCH INTENT and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate."
So, per the memorandum, you MAY be in trouble ONLY if the adjudicating officer decides something is fishy. And the officer is to treat the I-140 and supporting docs (based on which your I-140 was already approved) as prima facie evidence of intent. So why are you worried? Has your I-140 been withdrawn by old employer?
there is a memorandum issued by USCIS on
12/27/2005. It clearly indicated that I can't be denied due to leaving
previous employer prior to 180 days.
http://www.immigration.com/newsletter1/amendac21.pdf
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny
portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her
employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application
pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current)
employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement
that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the
I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140
petitioner before the I- 485 has been pending 180 days will not
necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases
an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as
of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if
not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent
to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to
undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not
presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting
documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in
appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be
appropriate.
I guess that the key is to prove that it is a bona fide offer. I have worked for them for 4.5 years. So even if they won't cooperate, I can argue that it is real.
I won't want to restart the GC process again. We are talking about a big amount of money for the whole process.
"Adjudicators SHOULD NOT PRESUME ABSENCE OF SUCH INTENT and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate."
So, per the memorandum, you MAY be in trouble ONLY if the adjudicating officer decides something is fishy. And the officer is to treat the I-140 and supporting docs (based on which your I-140 was already approved) as prima facie evidence of intent. So why are you worried? Has your I-140 been withdrawn by old employer?
there is a memorandum issued by USCIS on
12/27/2005. It clearly indicated that I can't be denied due to leaving
previous employer prior to 180 days.
http://www.immigration.com/newsletter1/amendac21.pdf
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny
portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her
employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application
pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current)
employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement
that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the
I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140
petitioner before the I- 485 has been pending 180 days will not
necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases
an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as
of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if
not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent
to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to
undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not
presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting
documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in
appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be
appropriate.
I guess that the key is to prove that it is a bona fide offer. I have worked for them for 4.5 years. So even if they won't cooperate, I can argue that it is real.
I won't want to restart the GC process again. We are talking about a big amount of money for the whole process.
hot hayabusa wallpapers 2010,
akela_topchi
01-15 06:13 PM
Friends,
Looks like Obama and his administration is serious about fixing things.
There are several polls on various immigration related issues at change.gov.
Some are "pro" and many are "anti".
Lets cast our vote, write messages, make yourself heard.
Lets convey what we're going through, and we want relief.
We are in it to win it.
Here are some immigration/Green card/Visa related polls. Lets vote!
____________________
Green Card related polls : Here (http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/search/SearchResults?searchType=2&str=Green+Card&search=Search)
Immigration related polls : Here (http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/search/SearchResults?str=immigration&search.x=0&search.y=0&search=Submit)
Visa related polls : Here (http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/search/SearchResults?searchType=2&str=visa&search=Search)
____________________
Some pro-immigration polls
- Please help the Immigration System (http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004lrV&srPos=0&srKp=087)
Some Anti-H1B polls
- Reduce the H1-B cap for 2009 (http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004nli&srPos=0&srKp=087)
- Replace India's Talent with US Talent (http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004spJ&srPos=1&srKp=087)
- Reduce H1 Visas: Jobs for Americans (http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004p5a&srPos=3&srKp=087)
- H1B Fraud & Legal Immigration Issues (http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004wtD&srPos=12&srKp=087)
Looks like Obama and his administration is serious about fixing things.
There are several polls on various immigration related issues at change.gov.
Some are "pro" and many are "anti".
Lets cast our vote, write messages, make yourself heard.
Lets convey what we're going through, and we want relief.
We are in it to win it.
Here are some immigration/Green card/Visa related polls. Lets vote!
____________________
Green Card related polls : Here (http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/search/SearchResults?searchType=2&str=Green+Card&search=Search)
Immigration related polls : Here (http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/search/SearchResults?str=immigration&search.x=0&search.y=0&search=Submit)
Visa related polls : Here (http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/search/SearchResults?searchType=2&str=visa&search=Search)
____________________
Some pro-immigration polls
- Please help the Immigration System (http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004lrV&srPos=0&srKp=087)
Some Anti-H1B polls
- Reduce the H1-B cap for 2009 (http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004nli&srPos=0&srKp=087)
- Replace India's Talent with US Talent (http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004spJ&srPos=1&srKp=087)
- Reduce H1 Visas: Jobs for Americans (http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004p5a&srPos=3&srKp=087)
- H1B Fraud & Legal Immigration Issues (http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004wtD&srPos=12&srKp=087)
more...
house Bike Hayabusa wallpapers:
Houstonguy
07-15 03:50 PM
Hi Guys, I am in Houston.
tattoo 2006 Suzuki Hayabusa Side View
vban2007
10-24 03:38 PM
I got LUD on AP 3 days back.. But same status... Do anyone lese in same situation?
more...
pictures kjkblade#39; 2006 Suzuki Hayabusa
ponnuswamyp
10-30 01:53 PM
If the ASC does not have much applicants waiting for services then they may service your case regardless of the time scheduled. Just make a visit and try.
I had moved to CA and got FP appointment scheduled for 11/15 at NJ. Last saturday I visited my local ASC and explained about my move. They did not bother about the appointment location & time and took fingerprints.
I had moved to CA and got FP appointment scheduled for 11/15 at NJ. Last saturday I visited my local ASC and explained about my move. They did not bother about the appointment location & time and took fingerprints.
dresses 08 hayabusa Wallpaper
prioritydate
10-02 09:31 AM
I had the same problem when I left my last company. They withheld my 15 days pay, constantly asking me to provide the no dues letter. I complained to DOL(Personally gave a call to them). I also informed Ex-Harasser that I got no option to but to complain them about the non payment of the salary. The complained worked like a charm. They sent the paycheck overnight( payed 16$ for the Fedex, can't believe that it's true). The thing is, you just need to tell them that unless you get the pay, you have no option but to complain to DOL, in most of the cases, these crooks will listen.
more...
makeup 1300 R Hayabusa Wallpaper
.JPG "Bike Hayabusa wallpapers:")
gcpain
07-24 04:42 PM
Thanks for clarification.
girlfriend Suzuki Hayabusa Drag
gsk_73
03-16 09:27 PM
During my H-1B visa interview at the Delhi Consulate I was told that my Visa is approved but some additional documents are needed. A pink slip, 221(g), was given to me, I submitted all the documents same day. Its been a week and the online status shows 'case is being processed'. I also have a valid advanced parole and I am thinking of entering on AP if the 221(g) takes too long. My question is, the consulate still has my passport, will there be any issues if I ask my passport back? how long does it take to get the passport back? Will the passport be stamped for '221(g) in progress? what kind of issues I can have at the POE? Thanks in advance.
hairstyles +suzuki+hayabusa+wallpaper
lelica32
04-16 12:56 PM
Is it B1 or B2 visa ?
Even with a B visa you cannot work without permision from DHS.
Even with a B visa you cannot work without permision from DHS.
Prashanthi
10-20 06:01 PM
[QUOTE=Openarms;1113771]Looking for attorney for GC processing. PERM - I-140 (Interfile with existing PD). Please respond with details so that I can discuss with full details later. Appreciate if you state your fees.[/QUOTE
As per 8 C.F.R. � 204.5(e) in order to transfer your old I-140 priority date on to the new I-140, you have to ensure that the old I-140 is approved and will not be revoked by the employer or the USCIS. You have to then file a new PERM, once this is approved file a new I-140 and request that the PD of the old I-140 be ported to the new I-140. This is the process.
As per 8 C.F.R. � 204.5(e) in order to transfer your old I-140 priority date on to the new I-140, you have to ensure that the old I-140 is approved and will not be revoked by the employer or the USCIS. You have to then file a new PERM, once this is approved file a new I-140 and request that the PD of the old I-140 be ported to the new I-140. This is the process.
flyingninja
10-30 12:36 AM
Thanks,for providing feedback, please keep sharing the developments or additional information that you might have. Interestingly I did notice that all the candidates in front of me at the VO counter also seem dejected, so it seems this new practice is much more widespread.
I am working on obtaining the documents and plan to visit consulate next week sometime. When I spoke with my employer, I was told that there were other cases in different consulate location in India where our employees faced similar problems. One of the case was also with an H4 candidate who was told to produce all these documents, at least one good thing I was told that all the cases were approved after submitting the supporting documents in few days. I am working on obtaining necessary documents at the earliest, make an honest case to the VO when I submit all the documents and will leave rest on god almighty.
I am working on obtaining the documents and plan to visit consulate next week sometime. When I spoke with my employer, I was told that there were other cases in different consulate location in India where our employees faced similar problems. One of the case was also with an H4 candidate who was told to produce all these documents, at least one good thing I was told that all the cases were approved after submitting the supporting documents in few days. I am working on obtaining necessary documents at the earliest, make an honest case to the VO when I submit all the documents and will leave rest on god almighty.
No comments:
Post a Comment