JunRN
08-27 02:12 PM
I second...no need to panic....let's start doing what they're doing on the last week of September if we don't get our receipts....just kidding...
I guess a well package application gets the nod for Receipting very fast while poorly package ones may face stricter scrutiny at the mailroom. Another thing, the mailing room is also sorting out applications to be retained at its service center and those that need to be transferred to other service centers.
I guess a well package application gets the nod for Receipting very fast while poorly package ones may face stricter scrutiny at the mailroom. Another thing, the mailing room is also sorting out applications to be retained at its service center and those that need to be transferred to other service centers.
wallpaper 3d cars wallpapers for desktop. new year wallpaper, free
beautifulMind
10-08 12:40 PM
What about people who were stuck for years in backlog and then got laid off and could not port their priority dates. I know a few who come came to US in 99 and now have a priority date of 2007 with a new employer....It should clearly be based on number of years of stay in US or expereince
redsox2009
11-18 10:10 AM
Thank you for your letter regarding the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act of 2009 (S. 729). As always, I value your input on this and other issues, and strive to keep you updated on the important issues facing us today.
On March 26, 2009, the DREAM Act was introduced by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL). This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to cancel the removal of, and give conditional permanent resident status to, an alien who entered the U.S. prior to his or her 16th birthday and has lived in the U.S. for a period of 5 years. Such a resident must also meet other requirements, such as be judged to be of good moral character, not inadmissible or deportable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, be admitted to a higher education institution or have completed high school or the equivalent, never been under a final order of deportation, and be under 35 years of age at the time of this Act�s enactment.
Furthermore, the DREAM Act sets parameters for conditional permanent resident status, and the process by which one transitions from conditional to permanent residency status. Under S. 729, an undocumented alien would also be authorized to petition the Secretary for conditional permanent residency if that individual has satisfied all of the above requirements prior to the enactment of the Act. Currently, S. 729 is before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary where it awaits further consideration. While I am not a member of this committee, I will certainly monitor the progress of this bill.
As you may know, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced on September 14, 2010, that he would offer the DREAM Act as an amendment to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Defense Authorization bill (S. 3454) as well as not allow a fair and open debate on the bill. I was disappointed that he chose to play politics with necessary support for our troops and national defense by trying to tack on the DREAM Act, which is unrelated to the daily operations of the Department of Defense. I remain committed to reforming our legal immigration system and streamlining the legal process; however, I have consistently opposed proposals that extend taxpayer benefits to those here illegally or give incentives for illegal immigration. On September 21, 2010, the Senate voted 56 to 43, where 60 affirmative votes were needed, not to move forward with debate on the Defense Authorization bill. I joined colleagues from both sides of the aisle to oppose this vote.
Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. As the legislative process moves forward, I will keep your thoughts in mind. If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me or visit my website at www.scottbrown.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Scott P. Brown
United States Senator
On March 26, 2009, the DREAM Act was introduced by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL). This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to cancel the removal of, and give conditional permanent resident status to, an alien who entered the U.S. prior to his or her 16th birthday and has lived in the U.S. for a period of 5 years. Such a resident must also meet other requirements, such as be judged to be of good moral character, not inadmissible or deportable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, be admitted to a higher education institution or have completed high school or the equivalent, never been under a final order of deportation, and be under 35 years of age at the time of this Act�s enactment.
Furthermore, the DREAM Act sets parameters for conditional permanent resident status, and the process by which one transitions from conditional to permanent residency status. Under S. 729, an undocumented alien would also be authorized to petition the Secretary for conditional permanent residency if that individual has satisfied all of the above requirements prior to the enactment of the Act. Currently, S. 729 is before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary where it awaits further consideration. While I am not a member of this committee, I will certainly monitor the progress of this bill.
As you may know, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced on September 14, 2010, that he would offer the DREAM Act as an amendment to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Defense Authorization bill (S. 3454) as well as not allow a fair and open debate on the bill. I was disappointed that he chose to play politics with necessary support for our troops and national defense by trying to tack on the DREAM Act, which is unrelated to the daily operations of the Department of Defense. I remain committed to reforming our legal immigration system and streamlining the legal process; however, I have consistently opposed proposals that extend taxpayer benefits to those here illegally or give incentives for illegal immigration. On September 21, 2010, the Senate voted 56 to 43, where 60 affirmative votes were needed, not to move forward with debate on the Defense Authorization bill. I joined colleagues from both sides of the aisle to oppose this vote.
Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. As the legislative process moves forward, I will keep your thoughts in mind. If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me or visit my website at www.scottbrown.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Scott P. Brown
United States Senator
2011 3d wallpapers for desktop
priti8888
10-08 08:34 PM
First I-485 is triggered by an act of the applicant (he has to apply). So USCIS is never going to know whether an earlier applicant is still out there trying to file his application or not. In fact I would blame the entire retrogression on USCIS' attempt at FIFO which is scientifically impossible. It only results in wastage of visa numbers. In 2004 USCIS wasted 47000 visa numbers, in 2006 it wasted 10000 visa numbers. What USCIS could think of doing is just approve whoever is approvable. So the visa bulletin has only 2 possible values "C" and "U". If an earlier I485 applicant is stuck in name check then he should take appropriate action (writing to senators, FL, GWB or file WoM) and get his case adjudicated.
There are a lot of misconceptions about AoS. Let me write it here.
1. A visa number is not needed to get AoS adjudicated. A visa number is only required to file the application. But USCIS' stand is that visa number is required both while filing and adjudicating. This according to the statutes and regulations is not true and valid. If USCIS screwed up and delayed adjudicating your application that is their problem. According to statutes and regulations a visa number is only required at the time the application is filed.
2. Neither Statutes nor regulations call for any fbi name check. Remember FBI name check is different from criminal back ground check or finger print check. The name check is an arbitrary decision by FBI and USCIS and will not stand in any court of law.
3. An FBI name check was never called for by USCIS on AoS applicants. It was only required for naturalization applicants. FBI screwed up by sending every one's name through this dreaded name check and now claims that it has too many names to check.
4. If your AoS application is pending for more than a year file a law suit against USCIS because USCIS violated regulations 103.2(b)(18). According to this regulation if an investigation is pending for 6 months district director should review it. At the end of 1 year he should again review it. After that it has to be escalated to higher authorities. Trust me this never happens. Violation of regulations is a serious offense.
So FIFO will never happen because USCIS cannot control who will apply when. Second FIFO is really bad because USCIS then has to keep shuffling its visa numbers around. Instead if it just approves anyone who is approvable atleast visa numbers would get used.
Well said !
There are a lot of misconceptions about AoS. Let me write it here.
1. A visa number is not needed to get AoS adjudicated. A visa number is only required to file the application. But USCIS' stand is that visa number is required both while filing and adjudicating. This according to the statutes and regulations is not true and valid. If USCIS screwed up and delayed adjudicating your application that is their problem. According to statutes and regulations a visa number is only required at the time the application is filed.
2. Neither Statutes nor regulations call for any fbi name check. Remember FBI name check is different from criminal back ground check or finger print check. The name check is an arbitrary decision by FBI and USCIS and will not stand in any court of law.
3. An FBI name check was never called for by USCIS on AoS applicants. It was only required for naturalization applicants. FBI screwed up by sending every one's name through this dreaded name check and now claims that it has too many names to check.
4. If your AoS application is pending for more than a year file a law suit against USCIS because USCIS violated regulations 103.2(b)(18). According to this regulation if an investigation is pending for 6 months district director should review it. At the end of 1 year he should again review it. After that it has to be escalated to higher authorities. Trust me this never happens. Violation of regulations is a serious offense.
So FIFO will never happen because USCIS cannot control who will apply when. Second FIFO is really bad because USCIS then has to keep shuffling its visa numbers around. Instead if it just approves anyone who is approvable atleast visa numbers would get used.
Well said !
more...
buddyinsd
09-01 01:56 PM
Congrats...Was there an LUD on 21st Aug on ur EAD and 485?
ArunAntonio
07-06 05:26 PM
Honestly i dont think any one person should "organize" it. If something goes wrong, then organizer will be held which is un-necessary trouble for some one wanting to do good!
What I meant to ask was which organization is organising this rally .. I am almost certain no single person is doing this.
What I meant to ask was which organization is organising this rally .. I am almost certain no single person is doing this.
more...
a2006
05-02 11:31 AM
Hello, we are not asking for a change. We are asking for a correct interpretation of the law.
I am not disputing your interpretation of the law. I just wanted to clarify its effect on people from countries whose numbers are not retrogressed.
I am not disputing your interpretation of the law. I just wanted to clarify its effect on people from countries whose numbers are not retrogressed.
2010 Free desktop wallpapers
fightnow
07-06 07:32 PM
This event has been registered at SJPD but no permit was issued.
Having a permit means you can block the traffic.
Without a permit, we are required to stay on sidewalks.
The police put down my name, driver license # and address.
However, when I asked if I have any liability for others fault, the ploice said NO. Everybody abides by law for himself.
Having a permit means you can block the traffic.
Without a permit, we are required to stay on sidewalks.
The police put down my name, driver license # and address.
However, when I asked if I have any liability for others fault, the ploice said NO. Everybody abides by law for himself.
more...
edgarrecto
12-16 09:37 AM
the january 2008 visa bulletin reflects that the eb3 category has a priority date of october 15,2002. are we made to believe that those persons who have priority dates of october 15,2002 and earlier, did not immediately file for adjustment of status but instead they will only file now this coming january 2008? is it believable that there are still applicants who will be filing now this janiuary 2008 even though their priority date is as early as october 15,2002?
hair wallpapers for desktop 3d cars
GCNaseeb
08-30 09:37 PM
Got receipt notice for I-485/AP/EAD/ from USCIS today (8/30/2007). My package was delivered to Nebraska center on July/27/2007. Notice date is August 21st, 2007. My priority date is Dec/23rd/2003.
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Congratulations. Mine was also delivered on the same date, 7/27. Did you get the receipts or your Attorney? Is your case EB2?
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Congratulations. Mine was also delivered on the same date, 7/27. Did you get the receipts or your Attorney? Is your case EB2?
more...
chanduy9
07-05 01:59 PM
If this guy from USCIS (Emilio T. Gonzalez) is an anti immigrant then he might think this is an appreciation from anti immigrants. dont you want to convey to him that these flowers are actually from people who got screwed by him and uscis
Pls my post very carefully...it is
Select Occasion: "Sympathy".....and you can write some msg in the card too...it explains from where it is coming and what it means...
guys think +ve.
Thanks,
Chandra.
Pls my post very carefully...it is
Select Occasion: "Sympathy".....and you can write some msg in the card too...it explains from where it is coming and what it means...
guys think +ve.
Thanks,
Chandra.
hot 3d moving desktop wallpaper
snathan
02-09 03:20 PM
Please donate...
more...
house this car Wallpaper 、3D
mqualique
05-01 03:49 PM
FOIA may be. Btw can you add a poll to this thread to see forum support?
Is suing the only option? USCIS could be making unintended mistake. We want to get clarification in a smoother and faster process before the flood gates open in October.
There should be some other legal-process to get written clarifications/interpretation etc on the law (like some kind of AILA discussion with CIS).
Is suing the only option? USCIS could be making unintended mistake. We want to get clarification in a smoother and faster process before the flood gates open in October.
There should be some other legal-process to get written clarifications/interpretation etc on the law (like some kind of AILA discussion with CIS).
tattoo New Desktop Wallpapers,
ssingh92
01-13 08:16 PM
I am trying to switch employer. The job title and job description is similar what written in my I140. At least 75% job duties are included in new job duties. But none of new employers where I found employment ready to write job duties. What is the other way to show that I am doing similar job duties. Should I keep scree shot of JOB add? Any idea.
Also my current EAD will expire in Aug,2011 I have to file extension in April. Employer asks if extension is denied... How to explain new employers.
If job title is exactly same as written in I140/labour does it still require to show job duties written by employer to USICS.
Thanks in advance.
Also my current EAD will expire in Aug,2011 I have to file extension in April. Employer asks if extension is denied... How to explain new employers.
If job title is exactly same as written in I140/labour does it still require to show job duties written by employer to USICS.
Thanks in advance.
more...
pictures girlfriend 3d bible, picture cars 3d cars wallpapers for desktop. animated
cchaitu
10-04 06:27 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^
As this is my crucial time of my life, anyone from our IV members please help/Advice
Q1) I understand that, there is no need to inform USCIS about our changing jobs using AC21, In my case my company provided their own Lawyer. How can I change that lawyer to my personal lawyer (I signed G28 for current lawyer)
Q2) Is it advisable to move forward with out a lawyer, if I decide not to inform USCIS about my job change using AC21 OR is it always advisable to go with lawyer (share your experiences)
Q3) If I want to represent my case on my own after AC21 (Signed G28 with current lawyer), How should I do that, When should I inform USCIS about this (before the AC21 kicks in -how much in advance)
Q4) If the 140 is approved, 180 days from 485 is passed, does employer still have a right/chance to revoke/deny the I140??? (I heard a rumor that it is possible)
Q5) Is that possible, If I call USCIS that they will verify my I 140 information � Because my employer never provided me with approved I 140 copy � I have only receipt number
Please advice - Thanks in advance
As this is my crucial time of my life, anyone from our IV members please help/Advice
Q1) I understand that, there is no need to inform USCIS about our changing jobs using AC21, In my case my company provided their own Lawyer. How can I change that lawyer to my personal lawyer (I signed G28 for current lawyer)
Q2) Is it advisable to move forward with out a lawyer, if I decide not to inform USCIS about my job change using AC21 OR is it always advisable to go with lawyer (share your experiences)
Q3) If I want to represent my case on my own after AC21 (Signed G28 with current lawyer), How should I do that, When should I inform USCIS about this (before the AC21 kicks in -how much in advance)
Q4) If the 140 is approved, 180 days from 485 is passed, does employer still have a right/chance to revoke/deny the I140??? (I heard a rumor that it is possible)
Q5) Is that possible, If I call USCIS that they will verify my I 140 information � Because my employer never provided me with approved I 140 copy � I have only receipt number
Please advice - Thanks in advance
dresses hair wallpapers for desktop 3d
StarSun
02-04 09:46 AM
$49,200 to go.
Thank you members for contributing.
Thank you members for contributing.
more...
makeup Exotic Car Wallpaper
delhiguy
07-08 08:51 PM
If that is so, no one who is on H1-b can sue their employer for exploiting them. BTW, I personally know people who have successfully sued their employer (US company) for not paying the salary they agreed.
Under the special labor law
http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/h1b.htm
U can sue anybody you want dear..
I am not a lawyer and this is not a legal advice, and i may be wrong
Under the special labor law
http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/h1b.htm
U can sue anybody you want dear..
I am not a lawyer and this is not a legal advice, and i may be wrong
girlfriend Create 3D Desktop
Macaca
07-08 12:33 PM
A GC is allocated after AOS application has been approved. An AOS application may not use up a GC # available in current year's quota (due to name check delays). Thus, AOS application submission is reasonably independent of currently available GC #'s.
However, retrogression does not even allow AOS application submission. The concept of retrogression can be avoided by accepting AOS applications but issuing GC's whenever a GC # is available.
That is why it loos like there is a law that limits the # of AOS applications submiited in addition to the GC #'s that can be allocated: two completely different concepts.
However, retrogression does not even allow AOS application submission. The concept of retrogression can be avoided by accepting AOS applications but issuing GC's whenever a GC # is available.
That is why it loos like there is a law that limits the # of AOS applications submiited in addition to the GC #'s that can be allocated: two completely different concepts.
hairstyles free wallpaper 3d, car desktop
purgan
10-16 01:26 PM
IV
I have a feeling that the restrictionists may seek to attach HR 6283 along with the SKIL Bill to any appropriations bill...the restrionists have long been trying to cut family immigration (which they call chain migration)..what do you think?
NUmbers USA are asking members to send this fax to their representative...
====
Dear Representative XX
I believe that cosponsoring H.R. 6283 is the single most important immigration action you can take right now to remove injustices caused by too-high immigration and to move US toward environmental sustainability.
Until the late 1950s, America's immigration tradition of family unity had only included spouses and minor children. Since then, however, immigrants also have been allowed to sponsor send for their siblings, parents and adult children for legal admission into this country.
Because each of those can then bring in their own adult relatives and nuclear family, a single immigrant can eventually be responsible for the arrival in the United States of his/her aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, first cousins, second cousins once-removed, in a spiraling chain that eventually could reach most of the world's six billion-plus residents.
Our immigration policy, particularly as it pertains to �chain migration,� is out of control. Please put an end to it by supporting H.R. 6283.
I have a feeling that the restrictionists may seek to attach HR 6283 along with the SKIL Bill to any appropriations bill...the restrionists have long been trying to cut family immigration (which they call chain migration)..what do you think?
NUmbers USA are asking members to send this fax to their representative...
====
Dear Representative XX
I believe that cosponsoring H.R. 6283 is the single most important immigration action you can take right now to remove injustices caused by too-high immigration and to move US toward environmental sustainability.
Until the late 1950s, America's immigration tradition of family unity had only included spouses and minor children. Since then, however, immigrants also have been allowed to sponsor send for their siblings, parents and adult children for legal admission into this country.
Because each of those can then bring in their own adult relatives and nuclear family, a single immigrant can eventually be responsible for the arrival in the United States of his/her aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, first cousins, second cousins once-removed, in a spiraling chain that eventually could reach most of the world's six billion-plus residents.
Our immigration policy, particularly as it pertains to �chain migration,� is out of control. Please put an end to it by supporting H.R. 6283.
mike_2000_la
06-12 11:30 AM
id(RD)
-----------------------
vk373
reddymjm
cr52401
Lucky7
any new receipts please add to this list...
-----------------------
vk373
reddymjm
cr52401
Lucky7
any new receipts please add to this list...
insbaby
09-09 06:36 PM
Everyone is expecting EB3-I will be NOV and USCIS sets it as APR-2001.
Long live USCIS.
Long live USCIS.
No comments:
Post a Comment