sk2006
07-14 10:48 PM
Thanks for the quick response...
Could someone please provide me the co-affidavit letter template.
Thanks,
Sangeetha K
Get it from your lawyer. That is what I did.
They know what language would be appropriate for your case.
Could someone please provide me the co-affidavit letter template.
Thanks,
Sangeetha K
Get it from your lawyer. That is what I did.
They know what language would be appropriate for your case.
wallpaper In: Long Blonde Hairstyles
cahaba
04-14 12:31 AM
Thanks all for your responses.
I will get the ONET job codes and post them over here.
Also, how do you guys feel about the self employed option? My friend or his spouse can start a company (LLC) and he can part-time and remotely work on some projects while pursuing his current Marketing Manager job. Does anybody have experience or know somebody who has used the self-employed option.
Thanks.
I will get the ONET job codes and post them over here.
Also, how do you guys feel about the self employed option? My friend or his spouse can start a company (LLC) and he can part-time and remotely work on some projects while pursuing his current Marketing Manager job. Does anybody have experience or know somebody who has used the self-employed option.
Thanks.
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.
2011 2006 long blonde Hair Style
mudigondag
05-27 12:56 PM
Does anyone know how many days prior to expiration of EAD, we can file for extension?
more...
DDLMODES
10-09 07:47 PM
Service request ?? What is that ??
Anyway, I understand that many people are in the same situation and that makes it a bit better. I will wait... Thanks for the replies...
Its just scary that after all these years they might consider the case abandoned if you don't receive the damn FP letter. Some guys didn't even get the receipts yet. I feel for those...
P.S.: Anybody got the case closed because they missed the FP appointment ? Is there a way to reopen it ?
Thanks again guys !
Anyway, I understand that many people are in the same situation and that makes it a bit better. I will wait... Thanks for the replies...
Its just scary that after all these years they might consider the case abandoned if you don't receive the damn FP letter. Some guys didn't even get the receipts yet. I feel for those...
P.S.: Anybody got the case closed because they missed the FP appointment ? Is there a way to reopen it ?
Thanks again guys !
gc28262
07-11 02:53 PM
My last EAD renewal was processed very fast from TSC
Applied: 10/22
Card Production Ordered: 11/12
Applied: 10/22
Card Production Ordered: 11/12
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
2010 shoulder length blonde
jbr
02-27 06:55 PM
Not sure if the conference call mentioned in the previous post has already been held. I wouldn't mind joining in future calls. Thanks.
more...
gkaplan
04-21 04:43 PM
Hello
My story is:
I've been on J2 for a while, it expires in May 2011. I have a EAD and currentlt I'm working for a company as a professional.I have a 5 years of Bs degree.
Questions are:
1. Can my employer apply for a Perm Cert for me if they want.
2. After getting the perm cert. can my employer file I 140 under EB3 for me?
3. Will I be eligible for premium processing for I 140 application, in 15 days?
4. Lets say all the above steps are accomplished and I got approved for I 140, all happened prior to May 2011 (this is the actual date my J visa and EAD expires).
a. Then I'll still be working with my current EAD, right?
b. Then what happens after May 2011?
c. DO I need to wait to file I 485 or can I file it right after my I 140 approved?
d. how can I legally work in the USA after my EAD from J visa expires, but if I have approved I 140.
thank you very much
My story is:
I've been on J2 for a while, it expires in May 2011. I have a EAD and currentlt I'm working for a company as a professional.I have a 5 years of Bs degree.
Questions are:
1. Can my employer apply for a Perm Cert for me if they want.
2. After getting the perm cert. can my employer file I 140 under EB3 for me?
3. Will I be eligible for premium processing for I 140 application, in 15 days?
4. Lets say all the above steps are accomplished and I got approved for I 140, all happened prior to May 2011 (this is the actual date my J visa and EAD expires).
a. Then I'll still be working with my current EAD, right?
b. Then what happens after May 2011?
c. DO I need to wait to file I 485 or can I file it right after my I 140 approved?
d. how can I legally work in the USA after my EAD from J visa expires, but if I have approved I 140.
thank you very much
hair Best Long Hairstyles
Pagal
07-24 04:57 PM
Hello,
If I read the USCIS news, then these are the questions I would ask myself and see if there is any serious legal concern...
1. Was I in non-pay status while working for VSG?
2. Is my job and location same as in my H-1B labor certification?
3. Are there any false documents submitted on my behalf to USCIS to support my visa petition?
If you answer no to all these questions, then legally you should be safe. However, as a further precaution, I would suggest to use AC-21 and move to another company. File a fresh labor (you can still claim the priority date from your old labor) and distance yourself from the fraudsters.
If I read the USCIS news, then these are the questions I would ask myself and see if there is any serious legal concern...
1. Was I in non-pay status while working for VSG?
2. Is my job and location same as in my H-1B labor certification?
3. Are there any false documents submitted on my behalf to USCIS to support my visa petition?
If you answer no to all these questions, then legally you should be safe. However, as a further precaution, I would suggest to use AC-21 and move to another company. File a fresh labor (you can still claim the priority date from your old labor) and distance yourself from the fraudsters.
more...
das0
04-08 10:11 AM
Check with a good attorney but as far i know, if you get paid by the for-profit consulting company (even if they place you at non-profit org), you will be subjected to H1B cap.
If your H1B paperwork (i-765) is directly from a non-profit org (like Univ, Govt, etc), then only are you cap exempt.
Also remember, if you ever want to txfr from non-profit to for-profit, you will be again subjected to cap. This assumes you were never counted against the for-profit company cap in any fiscal year quota.
If your H1B paperwork (i-765) is directly from a non-profit org (like Univ, Govt, etc), then only are you cap exempt.
Also remember, if you ever want to txfr from non-profit to for-profit, you will be again subjected to cap. This assumes you were never counted against the for-profit company cap in any fiscal year quota.
hot line hairstyles. hairstyles
conchshell
09-17 11:06 AM
Keep calling guys ...
more...
house Medium Blonde Hairstyles 2011
marlon2006
06-13 02:49 PM
Hi Renata,
I am from Brazil as well. My PD is April 2002. This cut-off date is making my professional life miserable. My wife questions on whether it is worthed the wait or we should just go to the South in Brazil and enjoy professional freedom there.
I hope that the potential unused visas from EB2 World can get transferred to EB3 World in October. Also, who knows perhaps the visa numbers on October 2006 can make our dates advance to 2002 ? Let's see, but in this process, nothing is certain. The only thing that it seems certain is that USCIS/DOS made a remark that advancement in cut-off dates should slow down or even retrogress further this Summer. Gloom scenario.
Hi camberiu,
my PD is November 2001 and we are hoping that next bulletin will get us there. Keeping our fingers crossed. I am from Europe and my husband from Brazil (on H4 and probably the only unemployed software engineer!!!!!) We cannot wait to file and get his EAD! Good luck!
Renata
I am from Brazil as well. My PD is April 2002. This cut-off date is making my professional life miserable. My wife questions on whether it is worthed the wait or we should just go to the South in Brazil and enjoy professional freedom there.
I hope that the potential unused visas from EB2 World can get transferred to EB3 World in October. Also, who knows perhaps the visa numbers on October 2006 can make our dates advance to 2002 ? Let's see, but in this process, nothing is certain. The only thing that it seems certain is that USCIS/DOS made a remark that advancement in cut-off dates should slow down or even retrogress further this Summer. Gloom scenario.
Hi camberiu,
my PD is November 2001 and we are hoping that next bulletin will get us there. Keeping our fingers crossed. I am from Europe and my husband from Brazil (on H4 and probably the only unemployed software engineer!!!!!) We cannot wait to file and get his EAD! Good luck!
Renata
tattoo Amanda Bynes long hairstyle
hello
11-29 01:52 PM
Source The OH law firm
The Oh Law Firm (http://www.immigration-law.com/)
10/14/2010: USCIS Pre-Registration Requirement Rule-Making Agenda in Nonimmigrant and Immigrant Proceedings - How Soon?
The USCIS has been pushing proposals to change procedures of filing of nonimmigrant petitions as well as I-485 applications for sometime. The agency placed these proposals on its agenda this year and surely enough, it has initiated the first part of its agenda in its rule-making vault. The agency drafted and has been seeking the OMB approval for proposed regulation to require pre-registration of the H-1B petitions, apparently as part of its business transformation transition program. It appears that the proposed pre-registration requirement in the H-1B petition process may not bring a drastic impact on the H-1B petitioning employers and the alien beneficiaries. However, its agenda for requiring I-485 applicants to pre-register their intents to file I-485 applications regardless of the visa number availability in the Visa Bulletin will have a significant impact on the immigrants because the proposed rule would discontinue the concurrent filing process for employment-based adjustment of status applicants and would require that an alien seeking to immigrate based upon a classification that is subject to numerical limitations must be the beneficiary of an approved immigrant petition prior to proceeding through a revised adjustment of status process. In plain language, it means that it would terminate the current I-140 and I-485 concurrent filing procedure. The agency justification was to streamline the overall I-485 process and to mitigate visa retrogression through improved estimation of immigrant visa availability. This proposal is still in the vault of the USCIS rule-making agenda with the initial estimation of the proposed rule initiation action in October 2010. We have no information as to whether or not the agency will keep this schedule or will rather turn it over to FY 2011. Whether it initiates sooner or later, it will not have an immediate impact on the foreign workers seeking a green card as the rule-making process will drag into months to come in year 2011. But this is something one has to keep an eye on the development of the USCIS schedules of changes in application procedures. For the reasons, this site will closely monitor the agency's movement from here on. Please stay tuned to this web site for the development of this news.
Any news on this?Will they give EAD?
The Oh Law Firm (http://www.immigration-law.com/)
10/14/2010: USCIS Pre-Registration Requirement Rule-Making Agenda in Nonimmigrant and Immigrant Proceedings - How Soon?
The USCIS has been pushing proposals to change procedures of filing of nonimmigrant petitions as well as I-485 applications for sometime. The agency placed these proposals on its agenda this year and surely enough, it has initiated the first part of its agenda in its rule-making vault. The agency drafted and has been seeking the OMB approval for proposed regulation to require pre-registration of the H-1B petitions, apparently as part of its business transformation transition program. It appears that the proposed pre-registration requirement in the H-1B petition process may not bring a drastic impact on the H-1B petitioning employers and the alien beneficiaries. However, its agenda for requiring I-485 applicants to pre-register their intents to file I-485 applications regardless of the visa number availability in the Visa Bulletin will have a significant impact on the immigrants because the proposed rule would discontinue the concurrent filing process for employment-based adjustment of status applicants and would require that an alien seeking to immigrate based upon a classification that is subject to numerical limitations must be the beneficiary of an approved immigrant petition prior to proceeding through a revised adjustment of status process. In plain language, it means that it would terminate the current I-140 and I-485 concurrent filing procedure. The agency justification was to streamline the overall I-485 process and to mitigate visa retrogression through improved estimation of immigrant visa availability. This proposal is still in the vault of the USCIS rule-making agenda with the initial estimation of the proposed rule initiation action in October 2010. We have no information as to whether or not the agency will keep this schedule or will rather turn it over to FY 2011. Whether it initiates sooner or later, it will not have an immediate impact on the foreign workers seeking a green card as the rule-making process will drag into months to come in year 2011. But this is something one has to keep an eye on the development of the USCIS schedules of changes in application procedures. For the reasons, this site will closely monitor the agency's movement from here on. Please stay tuned to this web site for the development of this news.
Any news on this?Will they give EAD?
more...
pictures This is so that the hairstyle
browncow
05-20 09:43 PM
From what I understand, if you have an H1b extended based on your Labor or I140 approval, if your I485 is denied, all applications/extensions based on your Adjustment of Status also expire.
From the lawyers' perspective, all of them promoting H1bs is more a business push than a 'favorable situation for the applicant' push.
Most EAD/AP applications/renewals are now filed by applicants directly, whereas H1Bs go thru the lawyers.
But keeping the moolah part aside, why would an EAD be invalid whereas a H1b be valid, when both are based on the Green Card application?
From the lawyers' perspective, all of them promoting H1bs is more a business push than a 'favorable situation for the applicant' push.
Most EAD/AP applications/renewals are now filed by applicants directly, whereas H1Bs go thru the lawyers.
But keeping the moolah part aside, why would an EAD be invalid whereas a H1b be valid, when both are based on the Green Card application?
dresses Blonde Curly Hairstyles
NKR
09-21 01:18 AM
Confused ...i think GC stands for Great Confusion
Came in 2001....PD 2003......EB3
Will I ever get my GC? What is it anyway?
When my labor certification was stuck at backlog elimination center, i was hoping that LC does not stand for "Lost Case" and now for some fre**king reason my early 2004 EB2 case is not being picked up when later cases are being approved, now I hope that GC does not stand for "Gone Case".
Came in 2001....PD 2003......EB3
Will I ever get my GC? What is it anyway?
When my labor certification was stuck at backlog elimination center, i was hoping that LC does not stand for "Lost Case" and now for some fre**king reason my early 2004 EB2 case is not being picked up when later cases are being approved, now I hope that GC does not stand for "Gone Case".
more...
makeup Long Hairstyle of Blonde
jeny
08-05 01:33 PM
Hi Friend,
i have sheduled for interview in July,some how i couldn't make it that time.I have requested to postpond for 3 months.Are they assinged any visa for me ? Are they going to call me for interview after 3 month.Can anyone tell me are they going to call me ? Please answer . Thanks
i have sheduled for interview in July,some how i couldn't make it that time.I have requested to postpond for 3 months.Are they assinged any visa for me ? Are they going to call me for interview after 3 month.Can anyone tell me are they going to call me ? Please answer . Thanks
girlfriend Long Blonde Hairstyles for New
gc_buddy
01-08 07:36 PM
He can send the I-94 to the nearest consulate by mail and a brief letter with all the details.
My friend while leaving US he did not surrender the I-94 card. Actually he forgot it at home and the airlines allowed him to board plane without surrendering I-94. What should he do now? Guru's does any one have any experience with such situation? Please help
My friend while leaving US he did not surrender the I-94 card. Actually he forgot it at home and the airlines allowed him to board plane without surrendering I-94. What should he do now? Guru's does any one have any experience with such situation? Please help
hairstyles Long Sedu Hairstyle for Women
tamil12
10-15 02:04 PM
I think you must have a valid H1B stamped in your passport to get H4 stamp for your wife.
123456mg
07-20 03:32 AM
Immigration attorneys normally send more than required documents to avoid getting RFEs later on. In this case, the reason people send W-2s (though it is not mandated) and tax returns is to show that you were working and were making approximately equal amount that was mentioned on you H-1B LCA.
Asking for W-2 or tax returns are within the powers of AOS adjudicator and s/he can raise an RFE for such "discretionary evidence".
The tax returns prove that you did not have any other source of income (that directly contradicts your H-1B compliance) and thus you were not employed on another part-time job or any other business of that fashion and complied to the terms of H-1B rules.
There are various factors to consider here:
1. If you know that your H-1B LCA had substantially higher amount and you did not make that much (cause you were on bench or any other reason), it would be far better not to send it. By sending your W-2 in such case, you are actually weakening your case and the AOS officer is going to find it out and will have RFE for it and later you will have a lot of explaining to do. Also, if you had any other form(s) of income (like some people use to make money in day trading and that forms their additional income), it will be wiser not to send your income tax returns and create additonal issues.
2. If you know that you made almost similar amount as mentioned on your H-1B LCA, then you will have to send all W-2 and income tax statements from the time when you were last inspected or paroled by the US immigration officer. Do not give anymore than what is really required of you. By giving unnecessorily more information, you may cause additional issues later on.
Asking for W-2 or tax returns are within the powers of AOS adjudicator and s/he can raise an RFE for such "discretionary evidence".
The tax returns prove that you did not have any other source of income (that directly contradicts your H-1B compliance) and thus you were not employed on another part-time job or any other business of that fashion and complied to the terms of H-1B rules.
There are various factors to consider here:
1. If you know that your H-1B LCA had substantially higher amount and you did not make that much (cause you were on bench or any other reason), it would be far better not to send it. By sending your W-2 in such case, you are actually weakening your case and the AOS officer is going to find it out and will have RFE for it and later you will have a lot of explaining to do. Also, if you had any other form(s) of income (like some people use to make money in day trading and that forms their additional income), it will be wiser not to send your income tax returns and create additonal issues.
2. If you know that you made almost similar amount as mentioned on your H-1B LCA, then you will have to send all W-2 and income tax statements from the time when you were last inspected or paroled by the US immigration officer. Do not give anymore than what is really required of you. By giving unnecessorily more information, you may cause additional issues later on.
kumjay
06-28 03:49 PM
It's 1947...Now we know not to listen to you :p
Yeh....1947. Sorry about that.....
Yeh....1947. Sorry about that.....
No comments:
Post a Comment