piyu7444
05-08 02:21 PM
:confused:
I am changing job and moving to EAD from h1b. My 140 is approved and 485 has been pending more than 180 days. I am in EB2 category.
Question 1 - New employer wants to inform USCIS about job change and I dont want to do so as it just might delay AOS process? suggestions/thoughsts?
Question 2 - New employer wants to apply for EAD and AP via corporate attorney and I prefer that my attorney do that but if i will have no choice I will have to give up BUT can corporate lawyers apply for my EAD and AP without me changing my legal rep with USCIS?
Question 3 - The job title was "Sr Systems Analyst" and now it would be "System Quality Analyst 5" 5 is the highest level in this company after which it goes to Tech. Manager. I dont see issue with the title...do you see any issue? (job description are similar-I would say about 70%)
Question 4 - Salary at the time of filing 140 was 60k offered for the Sr. System Analyst position and now with the new job is 100k. Can that be a problem?
I am changing job and moving to EAD from h1b. My 140 is approved and 485 has been pending more than 180 days. I am in EB2 category.
Question 1 - New employer wants to inform USCIS about job change and I dont want to do so as it just might delay AOS process? suggestions/thoughsts?
Question 2 - New employer wants to apply for EAD and AP via corporate attorney and I prefer that my attorney do that but if i will have no choice I will have to give up BUT can corporate lawyers apply for my EAD and AP without me changing my legal rep with USCIS?
Question 3 - The job title was "Sr Systems Analyst" and now it would be "System Quality Analyst 5" 5 is the highest level in this company after which it goes to Tech. Manager. I dont see issue with the title...do you see any issue? (job description are similar-I would say about 70%)
Question 4 - Salary at the time of filing 140 was 60k offered for the Sr. System Analyst position and now with the new job is 100k. Can that be a problem?
wallpaper chicasss sin ropa. CHICASSS SIN ROPA VIDEOS - Page 4. benhollberg. Mar 29
walking_dude
11-25 06:01 PM
To all IV members (and others), who have decided not to participate in the rally due to various reasons, I request you to give a very serious thought, and consideration, before reaching the final decision.
It's highly critical that we do this Rally and/or Lobby Day before CIR 2009 is introduced. If we miss the CIR next year, it may be difficult to get any relief to our community for many years. I agree with you that times are tough. But if we don't act now, it'll keep getting tougher & tougher.
I don't live near DC, and if you are too, understand where you are coming from. However, there is still several months time for the planned rally. If you book in advance, you should be able to lock-in a lower airfare on a budget airline. It may be a good idea to cash-in any Frequent flyer miles etc. you might be having ( I'm just throwing ideas here)
Get in touch with your State chapter or nearest state active chapter. If enough members like you step forward, you guys can sponsor a few members willing to participate.
If you still think you can't, please pledge or contribute donations/contributions for the planned Rally. If enough members like you, step forward IV may be to sponsor some members willing to participate, but can't due to economic hardship (out of job etc.) IV would also need funds to organize an event of this magnitude, to advertise it and arrange it.
If you decide to contribute now, you can do so by clicking the 'Contribute' option on the Homepage. If you decide to pledge, please post your pledge of support here.
I am confident that we will make it a success with your support.
It's highly critical that we do this Rally and/or Lobby Day before CIR 2009 is introduced. If we miss the CIR next year, it may be difficult to get any relief to our community for many years. I agree with you that times are tough. But if we don't act now, it'll keep getting tougher & tougher.
I don't live near DC, and if you are too, understand where you are coming from. However, there is still several months time for the planned rally. If you book in advance, you should be able to lock-in a lower airfare on a budget airline. It may be a good idea to cash-in any Frequent flyer miles etc. you might be having ( I'm just throwing ideas here)
Get in touch with your State chapter or nearest state active chapter. If enough members like you step forward, you guys can sponsor a few members willing to participate.
If you still think you can't, please pledge or contribute donations/contributions for the planned Rally. If enough members like you, step forward IV may be to sponsor some members willing to participate, but can't due to economic hardship (out of job etc.) IV would also need funds to organize an event of this magnitude, to advertise it and arrange it.
If you decide to contribute now, you can do so by clicking the 'Contribute' option on the Homepage. If you decide to pledge, please post your pledge of support here.
I am confident that we will make it a success with your support.
looivy
11-19 02:06 PM
I have H1B visa stamp on passport with my old employer and I have AP, EAD and H1 approval with my new employer. I am planning to travel to India in December. If I use AP on my way back, does that annul my H1 approval with new employer. Pl advise.
2011 chicasss sin ropa. CHICASSS SIN ROPA VIDEOS - Page 3. Beaverman3001. Apr 21
PierceG
05-31 05:06 PM
They're all very bad. Soul's is worst.
The music is great. I laughed and laughed.....
The music is great. I laughed and laughed.....
more...
hiralal
09-16 10:49 PM
done ..I would urge all to do the same !!
rc0878
09-23 09:58 AM
what does the priority date column on the recipt notice say?
Does it show the actual priority date or is it blank or something else?
Does it show the actual priority date or is it blank or something else?
more...
krustycat
03-06 12:03 PM
No actually its seems different from the receipt numbers which usually starts with SRC-xxxxxxxxxx
This one seems different like : PIT-xxxxxxxxxxTSC
It doesn't seems to work anywhere.
It's a typical service request. They filed your claim.
PIT = city in where you live (Pittsburgh maybe?)
xxxxxxxxxx = 10 numbers for your reference
TSC = Center processing your application or where you sent the original I-765.
The claim gives they 60 days to get back to you with a reply. Usually is useless, they're only taking extra time to have you calmed.
I've had my applications lost for 7 months. I filed a SR also. Nothing happened.
I still have 4 applications lost from 12.
This one seems different like : PIT-xxxxxxxxxxTSC
It doesn't seems to work anywhere.
It's a typical service request. They filed your claim.
PIT = city in where you live (Pittsburgh maybe?)
xxxxxxxxxx = 10 numbers for your reference
TSC = Center processing your application or where you sent the original I-765.
The claim gives they 60 days to get back to you with a reply. Usually is useless, they're only taking extra time to have you calmed.
I've had my applications lost for 7 months. I filed a SR also. Nothing happened.
I still have 4 applications lost from 12.
2010 chicasss sin ropa. chicasss sin ropa. CHICASSS SIN ROPA VIDEOS - Page 2;
gcformeornot
08-14 02:32 PM
Just now my lawyer called to tell that she got all my receipts , filed on july 2nd but my wifes application was rejected for "insufficient filing fees", I had put in a single check for $745 , how can this be, it was both in the same fedex packet, she says it is some "mailroom error", so she sent back the application with a letter and my receipt copy to accept. My app also had a $745 check and that was receipted,
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
to send separate checks so they can generate LIN/SRC numbers against each application.:(
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
to send separate checks so they can generate LIN/SRC numbers against each application.:(
more...
saileshdude
07-21 09:56 AM
All you guys,
Take an Infopass appointment and tell them that you have not received FP notice. Sometimes taking infopass appt helps. So you can try that option.
Take an Infopass appointment and tell them that you have not received FP notice. Sometimes taking infopass appt helps. So you can try that option.
hair chicasss sin ropa. chicasss
bigsky
10-17 06:43 PM
I received a letter from BEC and it says
This Notice of Findings is the Department�s statement of its intent to deny the application.
The following reasons were attached in the document:
1. - The job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any qualified U.S worker.
The case file indicates that telephone calls were placed made to U.S. applicants but the calls failed to reach the following applicants: A,B,C (name of the applicants)
Although telephone calls were unsuccessfully places to the three U.S. applicants, no certified mailing or other attempts were made to contact the applicants. An employer must prove that its overall recruitment efforts were in good faith.
The employer may rebut this finding by:
Providing documentation that certified mail was sent to the four applicants which demonstrates the employer made the minimally acceptable effort to recruit U.S. applicants.
2. The department of labor requires that when submitting an Application for Alien Employment Certification the case file must contain two sets of original ETA 750�s Parts A and B. your case file contains only one set of original ETA750�s. The other set of 750�s in the case file are photocopies. ETA 750�s with photocopied signatures are not acceptable for processing. In order to continue processing the Application for Alien Employment Certification you must send an additional set of original ETA 750�s.
A copy of the Form ETA 750, parts A and B, have been returned in the event that any changes are necessary. The amended copies must be returned with your resubmission. Any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part A, must be initialed and dated by the employer: and any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part B, must be initialed by the alien, as appropriate.
It is the employer�s responsibility to submit the rebuttal in a timely manner directly to the certifying officer.
I got already my 7th year extension and it valid till Nov 2007. I spoke with my attorney and he seems to be positive, but he could only able to find two of the three candidates email correspondence.
Please let me know if you have faced similar situation or any suggestions. What is the possibility of my case gets approved?
This Notice of Findings is the Department�s statement of its intent to deny the application.
The following reasons were attached in the document:
1. - The job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any qualified U.S worker.
The case file indicates that telephone calls were placed made to U.S. applicants but the calls failed to reach the following applicants: A,B,C (name of the applicants)
Although telephone calls were unsuccessfully places to the three U.S. applicants, no certified mailing or other attempts were made to contact the applicants. An employer must prove that its overall recruitment efforts were in good faith.
The employer may rebut this finding by:
Providing documentation that certified mail was sent to the four applicants which demonstrates the employer made the minimally acceptable effort to recruit U.S. applicants.
2. The department of labor requires that when submitting an Application for Alien Employment Certification the case file must contain two sets of original ETA 750�s Parts A and B. your case file contains only one set of original ETA750�s. The other set of 750�s in the case file are photocopies. ETA 750�s with photocopied signatures are not acceptable for processing. In order to continue processing the Application for Alien Employment Certification you must send an additional set of original ETA 750�s.
A copy of the Form ETA 750, parts A and B, have been returned in the event that any changes are necessary. The amended copies must be returned with your resubmission. Any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part A, must be initialed and dated by the employer: and any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part B, must be initialed by the alien, as appropriate.
It is the employer�s responsibility to submit the rebuttal in a timely manner directly to the certifying officer.
I got already my 7th year extension and it valid till Nov 2007. I spoke with my attorney and he seems to be positive, but he could only able to find two of the three candidates email correspondence.
Please let me know if you have faced similar situation or any suggestions. What is the possibility of my case gets approved?
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
hot chicasss sin ropa. chicasss
MatsP
November 25th, 2005, 04:14 AM
I prefer the light one. But I'm with David C that if you had more depth of field in the second one, that may well make that one "better".
--
Mats
--
Mats
more...
house makeup chicasss sin denua
ivvm
03-24 04:20 PM
Mark, This was indeed excellent!
tattoo chicasss sin ropa.
neelu
01-02 01:04 PM
Hi everyone,
I am currently on a H4 Visa. The H4 visa on my passport expires on 20 June 2007. My husband recently got a 3 year extension on his H1 ( I 140 approved) and because of him, my H4 is also extended for 3 years (valid from 10/23/2006 to 08/07/2009 )
I intend to travel abroad in february 2007 to be back in the US by march 2007.
I have a few questions in this regard:
1. Can I travel on my current H4 visa which expires on 06/20/2007 or should I get a new H4 visa stamped with my 3 year extension before I travel?
2. If I travel on my current H4 visa , is there even a remote possibility of being stopped at Immigration because of my new extension?
3. Also if I decide to travel on my current H4 visa, since I only have 4-5 months left before it expires, will US immigration pose any problems when I re-enter in US?
I would greatly appreciate if you can respond to my questions.
Thank you very much in advance.
I am currently on a H4 Visa. The H4 visa on my passport expires on 20 June 2007. My husband recently got a 3 year extension on his H1 ( I 140 approved) and because of him, my H4 is also extended for 3 years (valid from 10/23/2006 to 08/07/2009 )
I intend to travel abroad in february 2007 to be back in the US by march 2007.
I have a few questions in this regard:
1. Can I travel on my current H4 visa which expires on 06/20/2007 or should I get a new H4 visa stamped with my 3 year extension before I travel?
2. If I travel on my current H4 visa , is there even a remote possibility of being stopped at Immigration because of my new extension?
3. Also if I decide to travel on my current H4 visa, since I only have 4-5 months left before it expires, will US immigration pose any problems when I re-enter in US?
I would greatly appreciate if you can respond to my questions.
Thank you very much in advance.
more...
pictures dresses Chicasss Sin Ropa
needhelp!
08-31 01:45 AM
Registering a new country? I hope you are not kidding, needhelp!:)
Regards,
IK
With one appearance in print and one on the airwaves of funasia radio... I couldn't have had a better day. Thanks to IV!! I am a little light in the head right now, and its way past my bedtime.
Regards,
IK
With one appearance in print and one on the airwaves of funasia radio... I couldn't have had a better day. Thanks to IV!! I am a little light in the head right now, and its way past my bedtime.
dresses sin ropa. chicasss sin
-screenshot.jpg "chicasss sin ropa. chicasss sin ropa. harry; chicasss sin ropa. harry")
vin13
09-30 12:50 PM
I did have a LUD on 09/05 and 09/08 and then RFE was issued. Responded to the RFE on 09/22 . LUD on 09/22, 09/23 ,09/29 and 09/30.
EB2 India Mar 2005 NSC
There were atleast 7-8 cases from NSC on this board who received RFE's.
Can you please tell us what the RFE was about....Did you use AC21.
Me and my spouse both have RFE....so i dont know what to expect. And I have used AC21 and changed jobs....I am just hoping it is not related to this.
EB2 India Mar 2005 NSC
There were atleast 7-8 cases from NSC on this board who received RFE's.
Can you please tell us what the RFE was about....Did you use AC21.
Me and my spouse both have RFE....so i dont know what to expect. And I have used AC21 and changed jobs....I am just hoping it is not related to this.
more...
makeup 2010 chicasss sin ropa. chicasss sin ropa. girlfriend chicasss sin ropa
voldemar
03-26 10:10 PM
Hi,
Does anyone know if people on H4 are allowed to work unpaid? For example, can a person on an H4 visa file for an H1B visa with a start date of October 1st, 2007 but work on a volunteer basis (i.e., unpaid) at the same job while waiting for the H1B to come?
Thanks,
AndyPeople on H4 not supposed to take job that normally would be paid. They can do trully volunteer job like community service, charity work any other work that don't have to be paid. In your case it's real work, because you will be paid for it after Oct.1. So employer will hire someone else to do this job till that date. If you work unpaid you replace this guy.
P.S. I'm not a lawyer ;)
Does anyone know if people on H4 are allowed to work unpaid? For example, can a person on an H4 visa file for an H1B visa with a start date of October 1st, 2007 but work on a volunteer basis (i.e., unpaid) at the same job while waiting for the H1B to come?
Thanks,
AndyPeople on H4 not supposed to take job that normally would be paid. They can do trully volunteer job like community service, charity work any other work that don't have to be paid. In your case it's real work, because you will be paid for it after Oct.1. So employer will hire someone else to do this job till that date. If you work unpaid you replace this guy.
P.S. I'm not a lawyer ;)
girlfriend CHICAS SIN ROPA,
willigetagc
09-02 11:50 AM
Edit. Latest ..on my case.(with a little history) and this is hilarious.
8/21/2008 : Talk with the California Service Center (hopefully)
Me: My case has been transferred all of a sudden to California with the PD became current (on july 21, 2008), why ?
Answer: Your case has been sent back to TSC on Aug. 15th. We do not have the case any more. You can call TSC to confirm.
8/22/2008: Talk with Customer Service
Customer Service: Your case is still in California.
9/2/2008 : Info pass appointment. Talk with IO
IO: Your case is still in TSC but will be transferred to CSC soon.
I cannot believe such an organization exists in the world.
************************************************** *********************************
LOL!!!! I wonder if they want "chai - paan" like their brethren back home. :D
8/21/2008 : Talk with the California Service Center (hopefully)
Me: My case has been transferred all of a sudden to California with the PD became current (on july 21, 2008), why ?
Answer: Your case has been sent back to TSC on Aug. 15th. We do not have the case any more. You can call TSC to confirm.
8/22/2008: Talk with Customer Service
Customer Service: Your case is still in California.
9/2/2008 : Info pass appointment. Talk with IO
IO: Your case is still in TSC but will be transferred to CSC soon.
I cannot believe such an organization exists in the world.
************************************************** *********************************
LOL!!!! I wonder if they want "chai - paan" like their brethren back home. :D
hairstyles chicasss sin ropa. chicasss sin ropa. CHICASSS SIN ROPA VIDEOS - Page 4;
![chicasss sin ropa. 2010 [video chicasss sin ropa] chicasss sin ropa. chicasss sin ropa interior](http://www.vejleamtsfolkeblad.dk/modules/xphoto/cache/97/138097_626_312_0_0_0_0.jpg "2010 [video chicasss sin ropa] chicasss sin ropa. chicasss sin ropa interior")
gcFiler08
02-15 03:42 PM
Any news on this bill.
admin
03-15 01:22 PM
this person is bringing some valid points to ponder. People please go through her posting and i agree with her regarding the numbers is still 10% only for india. we need to fight for removing the per country limit, or else, we may probably be in this retrogression mess for quite sometime.
eb3retro,
Your concerns are well placed. Please be rest assured that we're working on reinstating the AC21 clause on per country limits.
Due to the sensitive nature of lobbying, we're sorry that we will not be able to divulge any more detailed information.
eb3retro,
Your concerns are well placed. Please be rest assured that we're working on reinstating the AC21 clause on per country limits.
Due to the sensitive nature of lobbying, we're sorry that we will not be able to divulge any more detailed information.
eyeopeners05@yahoo.com
06-02 03:04 PM
If they know you changed employers to use EAD (your previous employer has to cancel your H-1b by law which also cancels the H-4), then they will know.
Check some of the RFEs that are coming in these days. They want to see documentation in support of lawful presence right from day one of the applicant's entry, even if it was 10 years ago.
You have a valid point but in worst case scenario, can i use the EAD and handle the RFE at the time of citizen ship... is the RFE during approval of GC or during citizen ship ?
Check some of the RFEs that are coming in these days. They want to see documentation in support of lawful presence right from day one of the applicant's entry, even if it was 10 years ago.
You have a valid point but in worst case scenario, can i use the EAD and handle the RFE at the time of citizen ship... is the RFE during approval of GC or during citizen ship ?
No comments:
Post a Comment