senthil
02-12 01:11 PM
- lazy folks, are NOT just lazy to contribute $$
- many simply just dont know what mess that are into yet
im sure time will teach lessons to those, but no use - it may be too late. they might think about IV - when they have packed their bags and while at the airport, taring their I-94's one last US departure. yeah going for good is what i mean. see you somewhere in india. may be a good subject to talk when we all retire.
- many simply just dont know what mess that are into yet
im sure time will teach lessons to those, but no use - it may be too late. they might think about IV - when they have packed their bags and while at the airport, taring their I-94's one last US departure. yeah going for good is what i mean. see you somewhere in india. may be a good subject to talk when we all retire.
wallpaper celtic tattoo sleeve designs
calboy78
11-10 01:55 PM
Hi friends,
My brother in NJ got his new passport at NY Indian consulate (since old one was expiring soon). They gave new passport which was valid for only one year - saying that they need valid unexpired visa-stamp to give 10 year validity passport.
They said that they will NOT accept
- valid unexpired EAD
- valid unexpired AP
- valid 485 receipt
- even valid unexpired H1 approval notice (my brother still has H1 in addition to AP)
...Now it is so absurd that, even if my bro went for visa stamping (which he isn't planning), he will not probably be issued 3 yr visa as passport is valid for very short duration. A chicken and egg problem.
In addition why do Indian consulate worry about our visa status for determining passport validity duration ? If they do care then at least they must accept the legal documents (ead/ap/485 receipt/h1 approval notice) to make a decision.
I will appreciate if anyone has a solution to this problem. All answers appreciated.
I am so sad (and mad) that lawmakers of our country are still haunting us while we are away from our country and trying to contribute to its progress.
My brother in NJ got his new passport at NY Indian consulate (since old one was expiring soon). They gave new passport which was valid for only one year - saying that they need valid unexpired visa-stamp to give 10 year validity passport.
They said that they will NOT accept
- valid unexpired EAD
- valid unexpired AP
- valid 485 receipt
- even valid unexpired H1 approval notice (my brother still has H1 in addition to AP)
...Now it is so absurd that, even if my bro went for visa stamping (which he isn't planning), he will not probably be issued 3 yr visa as passport is valid for very short duration. A chicken and egg problem.
In addition why do Indian consulate worry about our visa status for determining passport validity duration ? If they do care then at least they must accept the legal documents (ead/ap/485 receipt/h1 approval notice) to make a decision.
I will appreciate if anyone has a solution to this problem. All answers appreciated.
I am so sad (and mad) that lawmakers of our country are still haunting us while we are away from our country and trying to contribute to its progress.
cagedcactus
11-01 07:07 AM
WD many thanks for arranging yesterday's meeting. Truly informative and very much helpful.
I thank the core on behalf of Michigan group, and truly appreciate the time they are putting into this.
We will not let you down. we will fight at local level until this monster is brought down.
Those who havent joined yet, please do so right now. Do it for yourself, and your family.
I thank the core on behalf of Michigan group, and truly appreciate the time they are putting into this.
We will not let you down. we will fight at local level until this monster is brought down.
Those who havent joined yet, please do so right now. Do it for yourself, and your family.
2011 flower tattoos for girls on
mhtanim
12-12 08:48 PM
I didn't read the RFE but the lawyer said they have requested for Audited Financial Statements which my company does not have.
When my I-140 was filed, I was given the option to either provide 1. Audited Financial Statements or; 2) Company Tax Return.
As my employer didn't have audited financial statements, my company submitted the most recent company tax return with the I-140.
When my I-140 was filed, I was given the option to either provide 1. Audited Financial Statements or; 2) Company Tax Return.
As my employer didn't have audited financial statements, my company submitted the most recent company tax return with the I-140.
more...
dionysus
01-24 11:37 AM
Filing for I-485 is better as after six months, the employers can not do much. Disagree with this post altogether.
Of course it is better. I am not denying that. But is it an achievable goal? Is this goal likely to be reached in next one year?
Asking for greater job flexibility is the goal that IV can reach within this session of the house itself. This is what it should focus upon. This will mean that within a couple of months EB based GC seekers will start getting offers with better salaries and better benefits.
Of course it is better. I am not denying that. But is it an achievable goal? Is this goal likely to be reached in next one year?
Asking for greater job flexibility is the goal that IV can reach within this session of the house itself. This is what it should focus upon. This will mean that within a couple of months EB based GC seekers will start getting offers with better salaries and better benefits.
vin13
01-06 08:41 AM
I just got back from India 2 days ago using AP. I am no longer on H1-B. My port of entry was philadelphia.
Initially, our finger prints and photos were taken and sent to Secondary inspection.Usually anyone using AP to enter will be subject to secondary inspection. At the secondary inspection after verifying our AP , the officer put a seal saying AOS with a date on the AP and I-94. They will retain one copy of the AP and return one back to you. Passport and un-expired AP(both copies) was all that was needed.
When you first approach the Immigration officer let him know that you are using Advance Parole.
Surrender all your i-94s while leaving. Make a copy for your records (both sides).
I was also prepared with a letter from my employer stating that i am working as .... since ....... Just a 2 sentence employement letter from my HR and carrried copies of my recent pay stubs. Also kept my i-485 receipt letter and i-140 approval letters. All these are supporting documents. Its good to carry them if they inquire more.
The immigration officers were very friendly. No issues or concerns. Nothing to worry. i have changed jobs twice using my EAD now.
Word of advise. when talking to the immigration officer, keep your sentences short and to the point. Smile and greet when you meet. Try not using abreviations for example AP. Say 'Advance Parole'.
Initially, our finger prints and photos were taken and sent to Secondary inspection.Usually anyone using AP to enter will be subject to secondary inspection. At the secondary inspection after verifying our AP , the officer put a seal saying AOS with a date on the AP and I-94. They will retain one copy of the AP and return one back to you. Passport and un-expired AP(both copies) was all that was needed.
When you first approach the Immigration officer let him know that you are using Advance Parole.
Surrender all your i-94s while leaving. Make a copy for your records (both sides).
I was also prepared with a letter from my employer stating that i am working as .... since ....... Just a 2 sentence employement letter from my HR and carrried copies of my recent pay stubs. Also kept my i-485 receipt letter and i-140 approval letters. All these are supporting documents. Its good to carry them if they inquire more.
The immigration officers were very friendly. No issues or concerns. Nothing to worry. i have changed jobs twice using my EAD now.
Word of advise. when talking to the immigration officer, keep your sentences short and to the point. Smile and greet when you meet. Try not using abreviations for example AP. Say 'Advance Parole'.
more...
jayz
07-17 07:01 PM
While today's development is great news for folks in the 485/AOS cue, what happens with people in CP? With the opening of the floodgates, I am unsure when visas will be available to CP cases who were scheduled for interviews in Aug and beyond. I am a great supporter of today's victory, but I am unsure where CP cases stand now? Another 4 year wait?
2010 White Flower Tattoo | DESIGNS
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
Siboo
07-30 03:35 PM
When do you get FP notices?
Within 4-10 days, after the USCIS sent the FP notice.
Within 4-10 days, after the USCIS sent the FP notice.
hair lack and white flower tattoos
wandmaker
01-02 06:58 PM
When do you think a person with PD of Nov 2007 ,EB3 from India, would be able to file for 485??
If each and every registered member supports IV with money, time or both then you will be able to file in 3/4 years otherwise 2025. Contributing money is most important task to start with
If each and every registered member supports IV with money, time or both then you will be able to file in 3/4 years otherwise 2025. Contributing money is most important task to start with
more...
nozerd
09-07 09:54 AM
Yes ofcourse, if I was at the end of GC road I wouldnt go in the first place.
I was questioning this since I wanted to know if it was legaly allowed, since I wouldnt actually be working and earning in the US.
If this is truly allowed and my company lawyer agrees then it would truly make my life easier.
Thanks
I was questioning this since I wanted to know if it was legaly allowed, since I wouldnt actually be working and earning in the US.
If this is truly allowed and my company lawyer agrees then it would truly make my life easier.
Thanks
hot Japanese flower tattoos have
Be_Pragmatic
07-23 05:35 PM
It varies from state to state based upon which money pool is used to pay the beneficiaries, but it is wise to not to go for it. You will show up as social burden at the time of adjudication and may affect the IOs descision while granting you the AOS approval or not.
Its my 2 cents. You may wanna talk to your attorney before even thinking about filing for such benefits.
OK, thanks much for your suggestion. I'll consult my attorney before plunging in.
Its my 2 cents. You may wanna talk to your attorney before even thinking about filing for such benefits.
OK, thanks much for your suggestion. I'll consult my attorney before plunging in.
more...
house lack and white flower tattoos. One soldier is inked in lack
transpass
09-06 11:23 PM
This one was posted by one of the IV members, sreedhar in other section of the forum. Don't know how much truth to it...:rolleyes:
If anyone has seen this already, my apologies...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=285637#post285637
Hello All,
I am giving this information after my cousin complete the interview with USCIS on 09/03/2008. Please take a look at the detail conversation bellow.
IO: Immigration Officer
MC: My Cousin
MCL: My Cousin Lawyer
IO: We are not able to verify your finger prints. That�s the reason we called you for the personal interview.
MC: I am ready to give right away.
IO: No your finger print images not at all visible. There is no way we can check your Criminal background.
MC: Is there any other alternate solution for this �? If so please advice.
IO: Yes�You have to submit local county police clearance certificates from past 3 years with in 30 days.
MC: Can you increase the time�? 30 days might be not sufficient for me to collect all the information
IO: Sure�Make sure you submit with in 45 days. Thank you.
MC: Can I ask one question�?
IO: Sure�.
MC: I applied my GC in 2003. Almost 5 years completed�Now I have problems with my finger prints. What else I need to do for the getting the approval on GC
IO: Don�t worry�Submit the Police clearance certificates�We will approve your GC soon. With out verifying I can�t approve...If I approve� I will loose my Job�
MCL: Well �.My Client PD is Dec 2003 EB3-INDIA. Visa numbers are not available at this time why you are asking to submit police clearance certificates with 45 days�? And once we submit how you will approve my Client GC without VISA numbers available�?
IO: Good question�.All EB Visa Numbers will current in coming 2 months. That�s all I can say. There is some process going on to collect some unused visa numbers�.I don�t know what exactly going on�But I can say with in 2 months EB Visa numbers will current.
MCL: Oh that�s great�
IO: Yes it is�
MC & MCL: Ok thank you for your time and we will submit police clearance certificates with in 45 days.
IO: That�s good�You are all set to go now. Thank you.
Based on above conversations I am saying�Please do not abuse me if it�s not going to be happened in 2 months. I am just sharing my cousin Interview details. I am also EB3-I 2004. I wish and Pray to GOD to make IO comment come true. Thank you.
-Sree
If anyone has seen this already, my apologies...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=285637#post285637
Hello All,
I am giving this information after my cousin complete the interview with USCIS on 09/03/2008. Please take a look at the detail conversation bellow.
IO: Immigration Officer
MC: My Cousin
MCL: My Cousin Lawyer
IO: We are not able to verify your finger prints. That�s the reason we called you for the personal interview.
MC: I am ready to give right away.
IO: No your finger print images not at all visible. There is no way we can check your Criminal background.
MC: Is there any other alternate solution for this �? If so please advice.
IO: Yes�You have to submit local county police clearance certificates from past 3 years with in 30 days.
MC: Can you increase the time�? 30 days might be not sufficient for me to collect all the information
IO: Sure�Make sure you submit with in 45 days. Thank you.
MC: Can I ask one question�?
IO: Sure�.
MC: I applied my GC in 2003. Almost 5 years completed�Now I have problems with my finger prints. What else I need to do for the getting the approval on GC
IO: Don�t worry�Submit the Police clearance certificates�We will approve your GC soon. With out verifying I can�t approve...If I approve� I will loose my Job�
MCL: Well �.My Client PD is Dec 2003 EB3-INDIA. Visa numbers are not available at this time why you are asking to submit police clearance certificates with 45 days�? And once we submit how you will approve my Client GC without VISA numbers available�?
IO: Good question�.All EB Visa Numbers will current in coming 2 months. That�s all I can say. There is some process going on to collect some unused visa numbers�.I don�t know what exactly going on�But I can say with in 2 months EB Visa numbers will current.
MCL: Oh that�s great�
IO: Yes it is�
MC & MCL: Ok thank you for your time and we will submit police clearance certificates with in 45 days.
IO: That�s good�You are all set to go now. Thank you.
Based on above conversations I am saying�Please do not abuse me if it�s not going to be happened in 2 months. I am just sharing my cousin Interview details. I am also EB3-I 2004. I wish and Pray to GOD to make IO comment come true. Thank you.
-Sree
tattoo Flowers Tattoo 3 - Extreme
sanojkumar
08-21 11:51 AM
bumping up??
more...
pictures lack and white flower tattoos
coolngood4u80
10-20 12:12 PM
This is going nowhere... Guys what are prospects of Grassley winning the Nov elections...I hope he looses
dresses lack flower tattoos. white
NolaIndian32
08-06 01:07 PM
Received an email from CRIS stating that Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident. Those who are tracking approval, check out IV profile/tracker.
Hi Wandmaker,
Congratulations on getting your approval and green card.
Could you please decode your Case Number using the info in another thread on this site - and tell us what year and what day your case was received by the Service Center?
Thanks
Hi Wandmaker,
Congratulations on getting your approval and green card.
Could you please decode your Case Number using the info in another thread on this site - and tell us what year and what day your case was received by the Service Center?
Thanks
more...
makeup Black and White Flower
acsouza
03-19 01:15 AM
So I asked my company's HR and the following is the reply I obtained:
<company name omitted> participates in E-Verify, which is a government run program that verifies work eligibility with the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration. E-Verify requires that List A documents (your EAD card is a List A doc) must contain a photo ID which the receipt does not contain. This is required because when your information is entered into E-Verify, a picture of your EAD card appears, I then have to confirm the picture in their data base matches your physical card. Due to us participating in E-Verify we must comply with their regulations which trumps regular I-9 requirements and we will have to wait until your EAD card arrives.
So according to the company I will work for the receipt would be a valid doc for List C of the I-9, yet their E-Verify regulations require me to present a document from List A.
I am sad. Completely ran out of money. Glad I have friends willing to lend me money at this difficult time or I would starve.
<company name omitted> participates in E-Verify, which is a government run program that verifies work eligibility with the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration. E-Verify requires that List A documents (your EAD card is a List A doc) must contain a photo ID which the receipt does not contain. This is required because when your information is entered into E-Verify, a picture of your EAD card appears, I then have to confirm the picture in their data base matches your physical card. Due to us participating in E-Verify we must comply with their regulations which trumps regular I-9 requirements and we will have to wait until your EAD card arrives.
So according to the company I will work for the receipt would be a valid doc for List C of the I-9, yet their E-Verify regulations require me to present a document from List A.
I am sad. Completely ran out of money. Glad I have friends willing to lend me money at this difficult time or I would starve.
girlfriend lack and white. Green
aditya
05-26 06:21 AM
Thank you all In Team IV
god bless you all
dont worry i also contributed
god bless you all
dont worry i also contributed
hairstyles lack and white flower tattoos. flowers tattoo; flowers tattoo
green_world
02-13 08:59 PM
I-485?? save $$ join IV
bkarnik
05-01 01:29 PM
Yeah.. I realized that. And I think I can qualify for emergency appt. BUT that wasn't my question. My question was do I HAVE to go to Chennai or can I get it done in Bangalore (they have an office that seems to have drop box like feature).
No. Drop box is out. You have to go for an interview, because they need to fingerprint you. I would advise applying at the consulate nearest your residence. BTW, there is link on the VFS website to check the latest interview date, I checked it over the weekend and was pleasantly surprised to see May 12th as the most recent date available. It seems the consultae has changed their policies to provide returning people on the same visa status a priority in getting appointments.
No. Drop box is out. You have to go for an interview, because they need to fingerprint you. I would advise applying at the consulate nearest your residence. BTW, there is link on the VFS website to check the latest interview date, I checked it over the weekend and was pleasantly surprised to see May 12th as the most recent date available. It seems the consultae has changed their policies to provide returning people on the same visa status a priority in getting appointments.
cal_dood
01-01 02:29 PM
Just came back from one myself, with stops in Belize, Mexico & Grand Cayman. Did not need visas for any of those. We did not even take the passports to the ports and no one was checking them either. All you need is your ship card.