emshal2
09-09 11:42 PM
mn
wallpaper Mofi SonyEricsson Xperia neo
ramus
04-27 04:51 PM
Fond this..
http://hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=219529&Month=4&Year=2007
Is this CIR in sanate?
http://hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=219529&Month=4&Year=2007
Is this CIR in sanate?
tinoue
09-27 08:24 AM
Hi All,
I received the I-485 reciept notice yesterday from my lawyer (see below for my info), but the alien number on I-485 is different from the number on my approved I-140. My I-140 has a number starting with A099, but my I-485 reciept notice has a number starting with A088. Someone in this forum mentioned that A099 is for the primary applicant and A088 is for the dependant. I am the primary applicant for I-485, so if it is true, I should get A099, not A088. I am not sure if I can have two different alien numbers or if this is a mistake by USCIS. Is anyone in the same situation?
I am sorry if this issue is discussed previously (I couldn't find the related thread). I would greatly appreciate your input.
Thank you very much.
-------------------------------------------------------------
EB1 ROW
PD: 08/2006
140: approved in 06/2007 (NSC)
485 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
765 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
131 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
FP notice recieved on 09/24/07
FP appointment (self and spouse): 10/16/07
I received the I-485 reciept notice yesterday from my lawyer (see below for my info), but the alien number on I-485 is different from the number on my approved I-140. My I-140 has a number starting with A099, but my I-485 reciept notice has a number starting with A088. Someone in this forum mentioned that A099 is for the primary applicant and A088 is for the dependant. I am the primary applicant for I-485, so if it is true, I should get A099, not A088. I am not sure if I can have two different alien numbers or if this is a mistake by USCIS. Is anyone in the same situation?
I am sorry if this issue is discussed previously (I couldn't find the related thread). I would greatly appreciate your input.
Thank you very much.
-------------------------------------------------------------
EB1 ROW
PD: 08/2006
140: approved in 06/2007 (NSC)
485 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
765 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
131 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
FP notice recieved on 09/24/07
FP appointment (self and spouse): 10/16/07
2011 Sony Ericsson Xperia Neo Price
eb3retro
03-15 01:15 PM
Filing 485 during visa unavailability, should not be the concern in this bill. Why our people are worrying about filing AOS when visa number unavailable? Man, this should not be our concern at all. Our main concern should be reinstating the AC21 provision that allow the oversubscribed countries to use excess visas in each EB category. Specter removed very important provision that eliminate per country limit in EB visas for oversubscribed countries. This is a big blow to India, China. It will stop all the benefits from this bill.
If the current form of specter bill passes, there is no benefit to any of us. If EB visa increased to 290K, excluding dependents from counting from FY 2001, recapturing unused visa from 2001 to 2005, and excluding EB1 (OR+EA) and EB2 (MS+3) from count, that drastically increase the visa numbers. The increase is unimaginable, and I feel that it will be about 4 to 5 times than current 140K numbers. If all the listed provisions appears in the final bill, the visa number will always be �current� for all countries for many years, provided AC21 (elimination of per country limit if demand is less than supply) reinstated. If this happens, no one needs to worry about filing AOS when visa number unavailable. That situation never arises.
If current form of Specter bill passes, all the new numbers created thro above listed provisions, will not give any benefit to India/China. DOS simply say per country limit is 10% only no matter what. Remember that, 10% is total of FB+EB numbers. (480000+290000). India and China FB numbers are also heavily backlogged. Therefore our main concern is to reinstate AC21 provision not filing AOS, and keep pressure to keep the listed provisions (EB visa increased to 290K, excluding dependents from counting from FY 2001, recapturing unused visa from 2001 to 2005, and excluding EB1 (OR+EA) and EB2 (MS+3)) in the final bill
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.
If the current form of specter bill passes, there is no benefit to any of us. If EB visa increased to 290K, excluding dependents from counting from FY 2001, recapturing unused visa from 2001 to 2005, and excluding EB1 (OR+EA) and EB2 (MS+3) from count, that drastically increase the visa numbers. The increase is unimaginable, and I feel that it will be about 4 to 5 times than current 140K numbers. If all the listed provisions appears in the final bill, the visa number will always be �current� for all countries for many years, provided AC21 (elimination of per country limit if demand is less than supply) reinstated. If this happens, no one needs to worry about filing AOS when visa number unavailable. That situation never arises.
If current form of Specter bill passes, all the new numbers created thro above listed provisions, will not give any benefit to India/China. DOS simply say per country limit is 10% only no matter what. Remember that, 10% is total of FB+EB numbers. (480000+290000). India and China FB numbers are also heavily backlogged. Therefore our main concern is to reinstate AC21 provision not filing AOS, and keep pressure to keep the listed provisions (EB visa increased to 290K, excluding dependents from counting from FY 2001, recapturing unused visa from 2001 to 2005, and excluding EB1 (OR+EA) and EB2 (MS+3)) in the final bill
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.
more...
JeffDG
01-26 03:28 PM
Waste of time. How many PhD's are there as compared to the others? There is already EB1/EB2-NIW for them
EB1A/EB1B/EB2NIW still consume visa numbers.
EB1A/EB1B/EB2NIW still consume visa numbers.
mps
06-04 11:26 AM
I had used 6 months of previous bank statement (original) and had mentioned the same in the letter written to consulate officer.
Using that my parents did get 10 year multiple entry visa.
Using that my parents did get 10 year multiple entry visa.
more...
immi_2006
08-07 10:54 AM
Though its not mentioned it is good file I-134. You are not eligible for I-864.
2010 Sony Ericsson Xperia X10i-2
arnet
11-24 06:20 PM
thatz gr8, always dont lose hope, keep trying....good luck...
Thanks arnet ,
As you mentioned i kept checking the chennai consulate, and it opened up like a blessing in disguise, with slots again and i was able to get my dates .Only problem was it forced me to cancel my earlier appointment and redo all the application again .That was because i had booked an appointment with Mumbai consulate in distress of not finding any with chennai .
Thanks arnet ,
As you mentioned i kept checking the chennai consulate, and it opened up like a blessing in disguise, with slots again and i was able to get my dates .Only problem was it forced me to cancel my earlier appointment and redo all the application again .That was because i had booked an appointment with Mumbai consulate in distress of not finding any with chennai .
more...
indo_obama
05-19 12:12 PM
Try to apply in another consulate . that might help. Otherwise as everybody has mentioned you are sufferring coz of the indian outsourcing giants who have abused every other VISA
hair Sony Ericsson Xperia Neo
surabhi
04-08 05:24 AM
This is serious and could affect quite a few.
Summary: you could be affected if ALL of the folllowing is true
1)you have a PD before July 16, 2007 ( likely case is EB3 I/C 2002/2003 PD)
2) you have left your original employer ( whether you stayed for 180 days after I-485 application to comply with AC-21 rule doesnt matter)
3) your original employer has used your labor to subsititute some on else ( before July 16,2007)
Remember you are affected even though you are the original beneficiary.
How did this case happen?
This happend because USCIS not following LIFO processing
1. The original applicat applied labor in April 2001
2. Labor approved in Jan 2002
3. Original applicant applied I-140 in April 2002
4. i-140 approved in July 2002
5. Original applicant applies for I-485 in Dec 2002
In Jan 2004, after more than year ( > 180 days and Ac-21 was enacted), original applicant leaves the employer, presuming that she is safe and covered under Ac-21
Employer promptly writes to USCIS asking to revoke I-140. The employer goes ahead and uses the labor for another person and files I-140
The USCIS apprves I-140 and subsequently I-485 for the subsituted beneficiary.
So how could USCIS approve a I-485 that was filed at least 18 months later than the original applicant. ( May be the subsituted applicant was from different chargeability country and hence could ge approved??)
Now the original applicant is screwed because USCIS cannnot approve 2 I-485 petitions based on same labor.
I feel for the original applicant. She played by rules all along, but got screwed anyway
Now you can see the chances of your case being caught in similar circumstrances
1. You are EB3, India/China with PD around 2002/2003
2. You filed I-485 sometime before July 2007 ( if you filed during July 2007 and you were with original employer at that time, this doesnt apply)
3. You left your original employer before July 2007
4. Unbeknownst to you, your original employer has subsituted your labor for another person.(before July 16, 2007)
5. that other person also filed for I-1485
6. Now its a timebomb waiting to explode
Summary: you could be affected if ALL of the folllowing is true
1)you have a PD before July 16, 2007 ( likely case is EB3 I/C 2002/2003 PD)
2) you have left your original employer ( whether you stayed for 180 days after I-485 application to comply with AC-21 rule doesnt matter)
3) your original employer has used your labor to subsititute some on else ( before July 16,2007)
Remember you are affected even though you are the original beneficiary.
How did this case happen?
This happend because USCIS not following LIFO processing
1. The original applicat applied labor in April 2001
2. Labor approved in Jan 2002
3. Original applicant applied I-140 in April 2002
4. i-140 approved in July 2002
5. Original applicant applies for I-485 in Dec 2002
In Jan 2004, after more than year ( > 180 days and Ac-21 was enacted), original applicant leaves the employer, presuming that she is safe and covered under Ac-21
Employer promptly writes to USCIS asking to revoke I-140. The employer goes ahead and uses the labor for another person and files I-140
The USCIS apprves I-140 and subsequently I-485 for the subsituted beneficiary.
So how could USCIS approve a I-485 that was filed at least 18 months later than the original applicant. ( May be the subsituted applicant was from different chargeability country and hence could ge approved??)
Now the original applicant is screwed because USCIS cannnot approve 2 I-485 petitions based on same labor.
I feel for the original applicant. She played by rules all along, but got screwed anyway
Now you can see the chances of your case being caught in similar circumstrances
1. You are EB3, India/China with PD around 2002/2003
2. You filed I-485 sometime before July 2007 ( if you filed during July 2007 and you were with original employer at that time, this doesnt apply)
3. You left your original employer before July 2007
4. Unbeknownst to you, your original employer has subsituted your labor for another person.(before July 16, 2007)
5. that other person also filed for I-1485
6. Now its a timebomb waiting to explode
more...
agc2005
12-25 08:38 AM
kish006:
Actually I and my wife recieved EADs with photos got swaped and then we sent back to USCIS with the following docs and yesterday we got the new cards.( I haven't recieved my AP yet, may be they also having the wrong photo on it i don't know yet).
1) write a Letter to USCIS explaining the problem
2) EAD Card
3) New photos
4) New I765 application without fees(If it is USCIS Problem otherwise you have to pay)
5) Passport photocopies.
Actually I and my wife recieved EADs with photos got swaped and then we sent back to USCIS with the following docs and yesterday we got the new cards.( I haven't recieved my AP yet, may be they also having the wrong photo on it i don't know yet).
1) write a Letter to USCIS explaining the problem
2) EAD Card
3) New photos
4) New I765 application without fees(If it is USCIS Problem otherwise you have to pay)
5) Passport photocopies.
hot Sony Ericsson Xperia™ Neo
chanduv23
07-08 06:47 PM
Om Mathew is obviously a publicity freak, now he has his picture on his website. I think he wants people to look at his picture and admire him
more...
house Xperia Neo e1297095679604
ramus
06-11 12:16 PM
Seems to me you joined IV for then a year now..
Can I ask you simple question.
What is your contribution towards IV.
Contribution could be in any form-- fund/invite friends/send email to reporters/ and so on..
Please answer here to we all will know.
Mr. Sanju,
We are all aware of what going on at the Senate floor and also about the ammendments that put forth on the floor. So my question is clear anc simple what ammendment is supported by CORE IV and what are we looking for.
Because the passing of the current version of the bill will effect all the old cases which many people are in and I wont allow that to happen. I will try my best to avoid this situation to happen. Even though i have a MAster in engineering I will not support SKIL progran that will void the previously pending cases. Good try core IV yto make member to work towards the betterment of few people You know what such people are called" SELFFISH". Guys beware on whaT ACTIONS YOU ARE DOING SO THAT YOU WONT REPENT.
Can I ask you simple question.
What is your contribution towards IV.
Contribution could be in any form-- fund/invite friends/send email to reporters/ and so on..
Please answer here to we all will know.
Mr. Sanju,
We are all aware of what going on at the Senate floor and also about the ammendments that put forth on the floor. So my question is clear anc simple what ammendment is supported by CORE IV and what are we looking for.
Because the passing of the current version of the bill will effect all the old cases which many people are in and I wont allow that to happen. I will try my best to avoid this situation to happen. Even though i have a MAster in engineering I will not support SKIL progran that will void the previously pending cases. Good try core IV yto make member to work towards the betterment of few people You know what such people are called" SELFFISH". Guys beware on whaT ACTIONS YOU ARE DOING SO THAT YOU WONT REPENT.
tattoo Sony Ericsson Xperia
onemorecame
08-21 04:14 PM
There were twobiometrics. One was with initial application (probably Nov/Dec 2005) and another was in May 2007 when the first one expired (FP is valid for 15 months).
are you in EB2?
are you in EB2?
more...
pictures Sony Ericsson Xperia Neo was
DDash
11-10 03:51 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3779
WOW...its amazing to see how a simple thing (in my opinion) like volunteering can be such a big deal.
While it is legal to work on a L-4 why are H-4s not allowed to work? Beats me!
WOW...its amazing to see how a simple thing (in my opinion) like volunteering can be such a big deal.
While it is legal to work on a L-4 why are H-4s not allowed to work? Beats me!
dresses Xperia Neo
BEC_fog
07-04 12:13 PM
Could someone please post the article here?
more...
makeup Sony Ericsson Xperia Neo
mani_r1
12-12 11:42 AM
Give them one orginal. Subsequent trips, just tell them that you have only one original and they will make copies. Some body posted a memo but i am telling you from my personal experience that they do not insist for original if you dont want to give them one.
Thanks ck_b2001
Thanks ck_b2001
girlfriend Sony Ericsson Xperia neo
perm2gc
11-03 04:30 PM
The health benefit is actually indicated in my employment contract as part of my employment package. However, they later informed me that the health benefit is already part of my salary.
I actually signed a non-compete contract with my current employer(which means I cannot work for my current client if I switch employer). Now, I'm planning to move to a different employer, but I would be assigned to the same client. Can I argue that since they did not give me the health benefit that they promised me, then it should be okay if I violate the non-compete contract? Do you guys think I have a point of defense?
Thanks!
Not Really..Your NCA will have clause that you will not sue/take legal action against employer and you are given time to legal consultation before signing the NCA contract...
Try to find out whether NCA's are valid in your employers state..For sure i know California does not honor NCA's..
I actually signed a non-compete contract with my current employer(which means I cannot work for my current client if I switch employer). Now, I'm planning to move to a different employer, but I would be assigned to the same client. Can I argue that since they did not give me the health benefit that they promised me, then it should be okay if I violate the non-compete contract? Do you guys think I have a point of defense?
Thanks!
Not Really..Your NCA will have clause that you will not sue/take legal action against employer and you are given time to legal consultation before signing the NCA contract...
Try to find out whether NCA's are valid in your employers state..For sure i know California does not honor NCA's..
hairstyles Sony Ericsson Xperia Neo
chintals
09-03 01:10 PM
Could make sure that you have had a soft LUD on your portfolio is what made you to call CIS ?
Yes.. i called because i have SLUD on 09/01/09 and my case was assigned to officer on 07/08/09 and PD is current in Aug and Sep.
Yes.. i called because i have SLUD on 09/01/09 and my case was assigned to officer on 07/08/09 and PD is current in Aug and Sep.
kondur_007
10-13 03:09 PM
Is it mandatory to wear business formal? I am going to get visa stamping with my wife, she is applying for H4.
Thanks!
I wore a T-shirt and Jeans; they did not ask me any questions.
No need to be "formal"; especially if you are going for re-stamping or already living in US. When you go back to your home country, it is "vacation" for you and so you are normally going to be casual.
Good Luck.
Thanks!
I wore a T-shirt and Jeans; they did not ask me any questions.
No need to be "formal"; especially if you are going for re-stamping or already living in US. When you go back to your home country, it is "vacation" for you and so you are normally going to be casual.
Good Luck.
Canadian_Dream
08-09 09:37 PM
Department of Homeland security (DHS) doesn't conduct background checks for Adjustment of Status cases. These are done by FBI which is a part of Department of Justice.This DHS announcement has nothing to do with background checks for AOS cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment