nrmarrivada9
04-01 09:13 AM
Well, it makes perfect sense to change the status to F1. And as you said that she will be going to dental school ( 2yr International program), i assume that the expenses will be sky high. F1 status would be helpful in securing the student loan ( for the future semesters) if needed.
This is my advise.
1) You don't have to do the transfer urself or neither there is a need for a lawyer
2) The schools International Students Office will guide you on doing the transfer. They would give you the checklist of the documents to be submitted, the website links where u can download the documents, fee to be paid, etc.
3) It is a simple and hassle free process
-Regards
This is my advise.
1) You don't have to do the transfer urself or neither there is a need for a lawyer
2) The schools International Students Office will guide you on doing the transfer. They would give you the checklist of the documents to be submitted, the website links where u can download the documents, fee to be paid, etc.
3) It is a simple and hassle free process
-Regards
jennifer aniston hairstyles friends. Star Hairstyles
mallu
02-10 05:25 PM
India EB with PD 1999 - How many pending ?
India EB with PD 2000 - How many pending ?
India EB with PD 2001- How many pending ?
India EB with PD 2002- How many pending ?
......
For USCIS it might be just the tap of a button to tell the numbers. All computerized , right ?
India EB with PD 2000 - How many pending ?
India EB with PD 2001- How many pending ?
India EB with PD 2002- How many pending ?
......
For USCIS it might be just the tap of a button to tell the numbers. All computerized , right ?
jennifer aniston hairstyles friends. Jennifer Aniston Haircut On
addsf345
01-13 04:01 PM
Yes. This is an old case.
Isn't assigning a later PD to a earlier PD substitute labor a mistake made by the USCIS? If I put in a request to USCIS to correct this error, will it help?
Thanks!!
it won't correct, as this practice has been long stopped. You may be in trouble for sure. I know you must have discussed this with your lawyer and now asking this on forum. If not, consult one. But if I would have been in your place, I will not go back to CIS on this. There may be some more wait but you must have EAD/AP, so use it and wait for your turn. Do not complicate your case. Its up to you & your lawyer. Best Luck!
Isn't assigning a later PD to a earlier PD substitute labor a mistake made by the USCIS? If I put in a request to USCIS to correct this error, will it help?
Thanks!!
it won't correct, as this practice has been long stopped. You may be in trouble for sure. I know you must have discussed this with your lawyer and now asking this on forum. If not, consult one. But if I would have been in your place, I will not go back to CIS on this. There may be some more wait but you must have EAD/AP, so use it and wait for your turn. Do not complicate your case. Its up to you & your lawyer. Best Luck!
jennifer aniston hairstyles friends. Jennifer Aniston for Hairstyle
newbee7
07-04 05:08 PM
There is nothing wrong in people getting approvals on july 2nd or for that matter entire this week or this month.. That is because, eventhough people get approval notice e-mails as july 2nd or any date after that, the actual approval happened 2-3 weeks before..
For example, for most of NSC approval in june 18th week, people have indicated that there Green card physical copy showed approval as June 4th. They got approval notice, and actual green cards starting only in June 3rd week. There has been flood of approvals, at least in NSC region.. Just ask any last month GC approved person, to tell what is the date for "Resident Since" on the green card..
The real issue here is that people with priority date later than that was in June bulletin were approved. If the July bulleting never became applicable, how were the non-current PD apps approved??
For example, for most of NSC approval in june 18th week, people have indicated that there Green card physical copy showed approval as June 4th. They got approval notice, and actual green cards starting only in June 3rd week. There has been flood of approvals, at least in NSC region.. Just ask any last month GC approved person, to tell what is the date for "Resident Since" on the green card..
The real issue here is that people with priority date later than that was in June bulletin were approved. If the July bulleting never became applicable, how were the non-current PD apps approved??
more...
jennifer aniston hairstyles friends. Filed under: Jennifer Aniston
santb1975
02-14 03:45 PM
I consulted an Immigration Attorney about this last week and she said getting laid off and being unemployed while 485 approval is pending should be ok. She told me that I have to have a Job with similar Job description and the pay mentioned in the Labor Certification by the time my 485 is ready to be approved
jennifer aniston hairstyles friends. Why Did Jennifer Aniston
Administrator2
07-07 08:23 PM
There is definitely something weird going on in the background. Otherwise why would u take off free expression of members. Why are u challenged ?
Specially by member who is on this website from 2006. Is collecting money is the only goal left or u want to do something constructive. I am not doing something like this in anonymity but half of the team knows by name. So what's ur problem Administrator ? Is Elections a big thing to ask ?
So u suppressed my thread from the front page ? That is shameful and challenges the transparency of the core team.
Now go ahead and ban me...I have no problems.
You can draw any conclusion you want. I have no reason to convince or explain you anything. Your website membership since 2006 will not deter us from taking action if we see you harm the objective of the organization, we will ban you without a doubt.
IV is a democratic organization with well defined structure and electorate. We have no reason to explain anything to someone who wants to work against the organization instead of work with the organization.
Consider this as a final note of caution.
All the best
Specially by member who is on this website from 2006. Is collecting money is the only goal left or u want to do something constructive. I am not doing something like this in anonymity but half of the team knows by name. So what's ur problem Administrator ? Is Elections a big thing to ask ?
So u suppressed my thread from the front page ? That is shameful and challenges the transparency of the core team.
Now go ahead and ban me...I have no problems.
You can draw any conclusion you want. I have no reason to convince or explain you anything. Your website membership since 2006 will not deter us from taking action if we see you harm the objective of the organization, we will ban you without a doubt.
IV is a democratic organization with well defined structure and electorate. We have no reason to explain anything to someone who wants to work against the organization instead of work with the organization.
Consider this as a final note of caution.
All the best
more...
jennifer aniston hairstyles friends. Jennifer Aniston Bob Haircut
praveenat11
10-08 05:05 PM
Are the dates current for I-485 filing?
jennifer aniston hairstyles friends. Jennifer Aniston Short Haircut
Blog Feeds
01-09 02:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgX1eppvfPUhrgeOQRGl1EQlD_EmcwFtlfidAXd0Hl8cR0JE-zZ5_VIDKH4q7KhFDnSiMRL4ioHm-qMFJAjNSRuUbgh4x43y6yVQeo3aFPSQXzE9TUTX-fvXoPrNwH89k_4s9DZIrFimQU/s320/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgX1eppvfPUhrgeOQRGl1EQlD_EmcwFtlfidAXd0Hl8cR0JE-zZ5_VIDKH4q7KhFDnSiMRL4ioHm-qMFJAjNSRuUbgh4x43y6yVQeo3aFPSQXzE9TUTX-fvXoPrNwH89k_4s9DZIrFimQU/s1600-h/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg)By Deborah Notkin, AILA Past President
Unfortunately, that's exactly what the Gutierrez bill is. While there are many excellent provisions on important components of immigration reform, especially family unity and legalization, the employment immigration provisions are overwhelmingly negative and geared to eliminate the employers from having any reasonable input on the specific types of foreign employees that are required in an evolving economy. The overarching provision is the establishment of a "Commission" that would determine U.S. immigration policy (numbers and categories) pertaining to temporary and permanent workers. A commission of seven "experts" would report to both houses of Congress annually the types and number of workers that could enter the U. S. Unless both houses of Congress acted to block them (a rarity in today's world), the Commission's "recommendations" would become the law of the land.
There are a number of reasons why substituting Congress with a commission is a bad idea. First, we don't have the statistical evidence available to make good measurements on an annual basis. Second, government commissions in DC overwhelmingly end up becoming unelected political entities, with their own agendas, often exceeding their original mission. Third, a politicized commission on such a controversial issue would be especially problematic because it would not be accountable directly to voters as are elected representatives. In a debate on the Commission concept that I attended in New York, proponents were struggling to find even a few examples of Beltway government commissions that worked and did not become politicized.
While the Gutierrez bill should be commended for including provisions requiring employers to take responsibility for utilizing ethical recruiters and providing a few exemptions from the employment based quota for certain types of professionals, it generally negates the legitimacy of corporate needs and lacks any concept of the global economy and the international, competitive personnel market.
Most egregious is the idea of bringing in a lesser skilled workforce through a sort of "hiring hall" lottery system that would eliminate employers entirely from the selection process. Foreign workers would be placed in a database and assigned to employers based on some computer's or bureaucrat's idea of a match. It reminds one of the unfortunate migrants who are day workers standing outside waiting to be randomly hired. Here, they can just stand in their own countries being assigned to an employer they may not have chosen if given the choice.
Additional provisions would eliminate the ability of employers to use entry level wages for entry level temporary workers. Forcing employers to pay foreign nationals more than their U.S. worker counterparts is totally absurd. Is this how we think America will benefit from the many foreign nationals who have just graduated from, among other fields, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathmatics, programs? And of course, the unworkable cap on H-1B temporary professional workers in a healthy economy is totally ignored, evidently to be left to the gang of seven commissioners.
It appears that Congressman Gutierrez put his heart and soul into legalization and family unity but left the employment provisions to be drafted by the most anti-employer parties in this debate. Much is borrowed from the Durbin-Grassley proposed H-1B and L-1B provisions and the Economic Policy Institute's piece on immigration, which starts out by labeling all employers using foreign workers as participants in indentured servitude.
I have only highlighted a few of the egregious provisions that promise to sink an otherwise good piece of legislation. And this does not serve anyone who sincerely wants to find a solution to the human tragedy faced by undocumented migrants in the United States.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4566215004987922662?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/01/gutierrez-billa-good-legalization-and.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgX1eppvfPUhrgeOQRGl1EQlD_EmcwFtlfidAXd0Hl8cR0JE-zZ5_VIDKH4q7KhFDnSiMRL4ioHm-qMFJAjNSRuUbgh4x43y6yVQeo3aFPSQXzE9TUTX-fvXoPrNwH89k_4s9DZIrFimQU/s320/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgX1eppvfPUhrgeOQRGl1EQlD_EmcwFtlfidAXd0Hl8cR0JE-zZ5_VIDKH4q7KhFDnSiMRL4ioHm-qMFJAjNSRuUbgh4x43y6yVQeo3aFPSQXzE9TUTX-fvXoPrNwH89k_4s9DZIrFimQU/s1600-h/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg)By Deborah Notkin, AILA Past President
Unfortunately, that's exactly what the Gutierrez bill is. While there are many excellent provisions on important components of immigration reform, especially family unity and legalization, the employment immigration provisions are overwhelmingly negative and geared to eliminate the employers from having any reasonable input on the specific types of foreign employees that are required in an evolving economy. The overarching provision is the establishment of a "Commission" that would determine U.S. immigration policy (numbers and categories) pertaining to temporary and permanent workers. A commission of seven "experts" would report to both houses of Congress annually the types and number of workers that could enter the U. S. Unless both houses of Congress acted to block them (a rarity in today's world), the Commission's "recommendations" would become the law of the land.
There are a number of reasons why substituting Congress with a commission is a bad idea. First, we don't have the statistical evidence available to make good measurements on an annual basis. Second, government commissions in DC overwhelmingly end up becoming unelected political entities, with their own agendas, often exceeding their original mission. Third, a politicized commission on such a controversial issue would be especially problematic because it would not be accountable directly to voters as are elected representatives. In a debate on the Commission concept that I attended in New York, proponents were struggling to find even a few examples of Beltway government commissions that worked and did not become politicized.
While the Gutierrez bill should be commended for including provisions requiring employers to take responsibility for utilizing ethical recruiters and providing a few exemptions from the employment based quota for certain types of professionals, it generally negates the legitimacy of corporate needs and lacks any concept of the global economy and the international, competitive personnel market.
Most egregious is the idea of bringing in a lesser skilled workforce through a sort of "hiring hall" lottery system that would eliminate employers entirely from the selection process. Foreign workers would be placed in a database and assigned to employers based on some computer's or bureaucrat's idea of a match. It reminds one of the unfortunate migrants who are day workers standing outside waiting to be randomly hired. Here, they can just stand in their own countries being assigned to an employer they may not have chosen if given the choice.
Additional provisions would eliminate the ability of employers to use entry level wages for entry level temporary workers. Forcing employers to pay foreign nationals more than their U.S. worker counterparts is totally absurd. Is this how we think America will benefit from the many foreign nationals who have just graduated from, among other fields, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathmatics, programs? And of course, the unworkable cap on H-1B temporary professional workers in a healthy economy is totally ignored, evidently to be left to the gang of seven commissioners.
It appears that Congressman Gutierrez put his heart and soul into legalization and family unity but left the employment provisions to be drafted by the most anti-employer parties in this debate. Much is borrowed from the Durbin-Grassley proposed H-1B and L-1B provisions and the Economic Policy Institute's piece on immigration, which starts out by labeling all employers using foreign workers as participants in indentured servitude.
I have only highlighted a few of the egregious provisions that promise to sink an otherwise good piece of legislation. And this does not serve anyone who sincerely wants to find a solution to the human tragedy faced by undocumented migrants in the United States.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4566215004987922662?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/01/gutierrez-billa-good-legalization-and.html)
more...
jennifer aniston hairstyles friends. Jennifer Aniston sporting the
dealsnet
04-22 02:32 PM
The PD hang around 2003 from 2006 to 2008. In 2006 to 2007, whole year, the PD stay for Jan 2003. In 2 years, dates moved very little. What they are doing in those years ?
jennifer aniston hairstyles friends. Jennifer Aniston Hairstyles
ramus
07-06 10:56 AM
PLease donot create new thread for this.. We alrady have thread for this.. There is already one thread on media .. Please put all posts there..
It is very hard for members to do work if we have so many threads on same topic.
07/07/2007: USCIS Reportedly Admitted Some I-485 Approvals at Last Minutes Without Completion of FBI Security Clearance
* New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/us/06visa.html?hp, has reported:
"To complete the applications in time, the immigration agency put employees to work both days last weekend at service centers in Texas and Nebraska, immigration officials said. They said that 25,000 applications were processed in the final 48 hours before Monday�s deadline. In some cases, security clearances required by the F.B.I. were not entirely completed, immigration officials said. The agency approved some applications �when we were certain the process will be completed very shortly,� Mr. Aytes said."
* The report also indicates that the State Department and the USCIS tend to disagree with each other for the root of the problem for the current fiasco. Earlier there was a report in the Washington Post that the USCIS denied that the USCIS worked ceaselessly and frantically during the weekends (two days) before July 1, but it has been admitted since then the employees indeed worked hard during the two days. According to the NY Times report, during the weekend alone, they approved 25,000 I-485 backlog applications.
* We are afraid that the alleged admission of approval of I-485 application before completion of the security clearance is likely to face the legal challenge for violation of the rules which is likely one of the main claims of the AILF lawsuit as well as the political backfire as an issue of security lapse relating to the homeland security. It appears that the July visa bullen fiasco is going out of control and pushes the two agencies into an edge. :eek: :eek: :eek:
It is very hard for members to do work if we have so many threads on same topic.
07/07/2007: USCIS Reportedly Admitted Some I-485 Approvals at Last Minutes Without Completion of FBI Security Clearance
* New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/us/06visa.html?hp, has reported:
"To complete the applications in time, the immigration agency put employees to work both days last weekend at service centers in Texas and Nebraska, immigration officials said. They said that 25,000 applications were processed in the final 48 hours before Monday�s deadline. In some cases, security clearances required by the F.B.I. were not entirely completed, immigration officials said. The agency approved some applications �when we were certain the process will be completed very shortly,� Mr. Aytes said."
* The report also indicates that the State Department and the USCIS tend to disagree with each other for the root of the problem for the current fiasco. Earlier there was a report in the Washington Post that the USCIS denied that the USCIS worked ceaselessly and frantically during the weekends (two days) before July 1, but it has been admitted since then the employees indeed worked hard during the two days. According to the NY Times report, during the weekend alone, they approved 25,000 I-485 backlog applications.
* We are afraid that the alleged admission of approval of I-485 application before completion of the security clearance is likely to face the legal challenge for violation of the rules which is likely one of the main claims of the AILF lawsuit as well as the political backfire as an issue of security lapse relating to the homeland security. It appears that the July visa bullen fiasco is going out of control and pushes the two agencies into an edge. :eek: :eek: :eek:
more...
jennifer aniston hairstyles friends. jennifer aniston hairstyles
jest_1
08-12 11:04 AM
What about a scenario like this.. If you had some gaps (less than 180 days), but left and re-entered and then filed your I-485. Would it still be an issue or does 245k cover this scenario ?
jennifer aniston hairstyles friends. jennifer aniston haircut new
jgh_res
06-20 11:11 AM
Are you trying your luck to get an RFE with digital pics?
Read the following post:
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?p=1678834&highlight=digital#post1678834
Some are successful with digital pics but there are lot of them who had issues with digital pics including me, twice. All the best!!!!!
get the photos from CVS, they give you 6 photos for 8 bucks
Read the following post:
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?p=1678834&highlight=digital#post1678834
Some are successful with digital pics but there are lot of them who had issues with digital pics including me, twice. All the best!!!!!
get the photos from CVS, they give you 6 photos for 8 bucks
more...
jennifer aniston hairstyles friends. Star Hairstyles
visves
06-18 02:37 PM
With the new fee structure, you would not have to pay USCIS every year to renew your interim benefits (EAD/AP). This would be most helpful if you are from a retrogressed country and don't expect adjudication any time soon. But, I am not sure what disadvantage you would have if you wait and file on July 30 instead of July 1...obviously there would be a ton of people before you. Personally, I am not sure how everything would play out and if the benefits outweigh the risks.
Since many are about to file their I 485 petitions, there was some talk about some advantages to filing this petition when the new fee structure goes into effect end of July.
One might be able to wait till mid July to see the August bulletin come out, if PD still current then could file in August with the new fee structure.
Question I had was -
What are the advantages if any to filing when the new fee structure is in place?
or should one file the earliest date one can, say 1st week of July?
I would appreciate if someone could shed some light on this. Thanks!
Since many are about to file their I 485 petitions, there was some talk about some advantages to filing this petition when the new fee structure goes into effect end of July.
One might be able to wait till mid July to see the August bulletin come out, if PD still current then could file in August with the new fee structure.
Question I had was -
What are the advantages if any to filing when the new fee structure is in place?
or should one file the earliest date one can, say 1st week of July?
I would appreciate if someone could shed some light on this. Thanks!
jennifer aniston hairstyles friends. Jennifer Aniston
shx
09-28 01:03 AM
Eb2
more...
jennifer aniston hairstyles friends. Jennifer Aniston Friends
cvk90
06-23 10:31 PM
My attornies (big firm...working for Fortune 500 company) says that dates could retrogress anytime i.e. on 15 July 07, dates could move back several months and the chances of that happening are very high. My advise is to have your spouse cut the vacation short and return asap...! You need to file ASAP.
jennifer aniston hairstyles friends. Jennifer Aniston Hairstyles
jjava100
08-27 04:51 PM
MurthyDotCom : Moving to the Faster Lane - Changing EB3 to EB2 (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_eb3to2.html)
EbImmigrationReference: EB2 Porting (http://ebimmigrationreference.blogspot.com/search/label/EB2%20Porting)
EbImmigrationReference: EB2 Porting (http://ebimmigrationreference.blogspot.com/search/label/EB2%20Porting)
more...
jennifer aniston hairstyles friends. Famous Jennifer Aniston
rpat1968
09-10 11:47 AM
MY PD is july 2004 (I485 filed on 2 July 2007 with ND date 8/9/2007) and I did not get any approvals so I opened a SR on 09/03/09.
Yesterday I received a "DISTURBING" response to the SR saying that my dates are not current because I am in EB3. I am EB2 and had only I140 approved way back in Nov 2006. So I created another SR (with the help of a nice CSR by calling USCIS yesterday 09/09/09) today morning I went for an infopass appointment in DallaS, TX to check why the USCIS is saying my case is in EB3 and not EB2. Luckily at the Infopass I was assigned to a Desi IO to help me with my issue. He spent lot of time looking researching my case and told me that my case is EB2 and the dates are current. During my Infopass appointment the IO noticed that someone audited my case few seconds before and showed me the screen where it showed that my case was PreAdjudicated. He said it looks like soneone is working on the case and I should hear from USCIS quickly. I am sure that the Second SR triggered some one to look at the case. And might be they corrected the EB category.
Now I am eagerly awaiting my approval (primary + 2 Dependents).
My suggesstion to people who are waiting (With PD's before Feb 2005 ) are to Open SR , make Infopass appointments to check on the status. Its very important to know if there are any problems in your case similar to mine.
If anyone needs any help with Opening SR or creating Infopass PM me and I will be glad to help.
Yesterday I received a "DISTURBING" response to the SR saying that my dates are not current because I am in EB3. I am EB2 and had only I140 approved way back in Nov 2006. So I created another SR (with the help of a nice CSR by calling USCIS yesterday 09/09/09) today morning I went for an infopass appointment in DallaS, TX to check why the USCIS is saying my case is in EB3 and not EB2. Luckily at the Infopass I was assigned to a Desi IO to help me with my issue. He spent lot of time looking researching my case and told me that my case is EB2 and the dates are current. During my Infopass appointment the IO noticed that someone audited my case few seconds before and showed me the screen where it showed that my case was PreAdjudicated. He said it looks like soneone is working on the case and I should hear from USCIS quickly. I am sure that the Second SR triggered some one to look at the case. And might be they corrected the EB category.
Now I am eagerly awaiting my approval (primary + 2 Dependents).
My suggesstion to people who are waiting (With PD's before Feb 2005 ) are to Open SR , make Infopass appointments to check on the status. Its very important to know if there are any problems in your case similar to mine.
If anyone needs any help with Opening SR or creating Infopass PM me and I will be glad to help.
jennifer aniston hairstyles friends. Jennifer Aniston sporting #39;The
learning01
05-15 07:58 PM
nandakumar:
I wanted other to know that participating in IV forums is totally anonymous. I assume that's the way this movement originators wanted it that way. I will ask 'admin' to comment on this. Is it possible for forum users to show and view other's profiles? (I guess not) and if yes how to turn it off.
I admire your efforts. I am watching the commetary on President Bush's speech. I will reply to other points at a later time. Bye.
I wanted other to know that participating in IV forums is totally anonymous. I assume that's the way this movement originators wanted it that way. I will ask 'admin' to comment on this. Is it possible for forum users to show and view other's profiles? (I guess not) and if yes how to turn it off.
I admire your efforts. I am watching the commetary on President Bush's speech. I will reply to other points at a later time. Bye.
jennifer aniston hairstyles friends. jennifer aniston hairstyles
shamin_a
12-09 10:54 AM
Is Visa recapture part of this bill?
new_horizon
12-03 01:27 PM
hope you are not talking about quixtar/amway or reliv business?
lagsam
12-17 03:35 PM
There is no problem re-entering with a valid AP, even if the validity date is the day you re-enter.
You will have a problem if your AP is expired. My daughter came back with just one month on her AP and she was stamped with extra 6 months on I-94. But I don't know the reason for that.
You will have a problem if your AP is expired. My daughter came back with just one month on her AP and she was stamped with extra 6 months on I-94. But I don't know the reason for that.
No comments:
Post a Comment