forgerator
11-08 04:38 PM
You are right on target, YES when the requirements are higher than similar positions in the industry DOL send RFP to prove business necessity for higher requirements.
If they suspect any fraud then your employer will be asked for supervised recruitment effort
Second, Your salary should reflect the (higher) qualifications, higher than prevailing!
Third, if the requirement is MS+7yrs of experience, do you have 7yrs of experience after receiving your MS?;)
I am in a similar situation where I am going to start my EB2 , however the internal job requirements for my position demand more than what the EB2 requirements are. They are as following:
Bachelors plus 6-8 yrs experience
or alternatively
Masters plus 4-6 yrs experience.
I do have Masters and my overall experience is 5.5 yrs but out of that 4.5 yrs were with the current employer so those won't be counted. How will I become eligible for EB2? Will the lawyer downgrade the requirement to Masters + 1 yr experience or will he keep requirement to say Masters + 4yr ? I guess I'm confused how this will work. :o
If they suspect any fraud then your employer will be asked for supervised recruitment effort
Second, Your salary should reflect the (higher) qualifications, higher than prevailing!
Third, if the requirement is MS+7yrs of experience, do you have 7yrs of experience after receiving your MS?;)
I am in a similar situation where I am going to start my EB2 , however the internal job requirements for my position demand more than what the EB2 requirements are. They are as following:
Bachelors plus 6-8 yrs experience
or alternatively
Masters plus 4-6 yrs experience.
I do have Masters and my overall experience is 5.5 yrs but out of that 4.5 yrs were with the current employer so those won't be counted. How will I become eligible for EB2? Will the lawyer downgrade the requirement to Masters + 1 yr experience or will he keep requirement to say Masters + 4yr ? I guess I'm confused how this will work. :o
wallpaper justin bieber never say never
kisana
04-11 04:27 PM
Can any one who has used e-file , please advice for my last two questions.
chanduv23
12-24 09:13 AM
Congratulations to IV and its great leaders.
Congratulations to all the members for holding this fortress.
Congratulations to all the selfless volunteers who have dedicated time, skill, effort and money on IV.
We must also congratulate Anti immgrants, Dormant members, Freeloaders, people with no faith in hard/good work because you help in making the organization stronger day by day.
Congratulations to all the members for holding this fortress.
Congratulations to all the selfless volunteers who have dedicated time, skill, effort and money on IV.
We must also congratulate Anti immgrants, Dormant members, Freeloaders, people with no faith in hard/good work because you help in making the organization stronger day by day.
2011 justin bieber never say never
anirudh74
08-08 09:19 PM
I am sorry to say , but I have not seen any results from IV as well , they seem to be in the same boat as us, wait , wait and wait more, things will take care of themselves over time, seems to be the strategy.
more...
sujan_vatrapu
10-27 02:23 PM
Great to know, this is a revelation so you need to get more info about Fox TV, how right they are here more than this senas..
So along with Fox TV what help you are planning for all of our immigration problems?
first of all, just for putting my point out are u trying to point finger at me? this is exactly what hinders the development, we need a dialogue and not controversy or finger pointing, i am fine with you not agreeing with me, everyone is entitled to their opinion but lets have a conversation, lets put out our opinions and let ppl base their decisions on our conversation,
regarding my contributions i have attended IV chapter meetings, called senator/congresman offices whenever there is an IV action item, i wont ask ur plans on helping immigrant community (because that's not the point here), but u r already helping others by contributing to this discussion which lets other form an opinion,
So along with Fox TV what help you are planning for all of our immigration problems?
first of all, just for putting my point out are u trying to point finger at me? this is exactly what hinders the development, we need a dialogue and not controversy or finger pointing, i am fine with you not agreeing with me, everyone is entitled to their opinion but lets have a conversation, lets put out our opinions and let ppl base their decisions on our conversation,
regarding my contributions i have attended IV chapter meetings, called senator/congresman offices whenever there is an IV action item, i wont ask ur plans on helping immigrant community (because that's not the point here), but u r already helping others by contributing to this discussion which lets other form an opinion,
wandmaker
08-17 02:14 AM
Thanks for the valuable inputs.
Applying for premium processing with Company C seems to be best option. However sometimes premium processing takes more than 15 days to get a result. Since Company B has indicated that they will terminate my employment by the end of this month (less than 15 days from now), I may not have the option of resigning from Company B, before getting Company C's approval.
If B terminates my employment, and my transfer to C is still Pending, what will happen in such a case ?
You can start working for Employer C as and when you have the receipt notice for C's transfer. Just make sure, you file for transfer before termination. You have all the documents that is required for H1 transfer, dont worry about it.
Applying for premium processing with Company C seems to be best option. However sometimes premium processing takes more than 15 days to get a result. Since Company B has indicated that they will terminate my employment by the end of this month (less than 15 days from now), I may not have the option of resigning from Company B, before getting Company C's approval.
If B terminates my employment, and my transfer to C is still Pending, what will happen in such a case ?
You can start working for Employer C as and when you have the receipt notice for C's transfer. Just make sure, you file for transfer before termination. You have all the documents that is required for H1 transfer, dont worry about it.
more...
roseball
11-14 10:43 AM
If you are coming back to US to work for the same H1 employer, then re-entering on AP does not invalidate your H1. Yes, after coming back you can file for a H1 COE petition.
2010 justin bieber never say never
kondur_007
07-30 08:31 PM
I am so confuse and cursing myself why did I leave US. My apartment, my car , my belongings every thing is back in US and I am stuck here
First of all, calm down. Everything will be just fine. If you stress out, you burn your own brain cells.
So my understanding is that if I file for CP then I would be asked to interview in home country for my GC and it could take long once again if it gets stuck in name check.
Yes, that is correct. If you file for CP, your approved I 140 gets forwarded to the consulate and then consulate will process it (if PD is current) and give you interview. They WILL do the name check and if it is not cleared for H1, it is not likely to be cleared for GC. so they will not give interview till your name check is cleared and PD is current.
But if I wait for H-1 name check clearance then I could enter to US and apply for I 485 and even if it takes longer than 6 months, I would get I 185 approved.
That is correct. There is not time limit after approval of I 140 to file 485. You can file it any time after I 140 is filed and if you are stuck there due to name check, you have a reason for the delay as well (just in case someone asks in future; but no one is supposed to ask it any way). So by all means you will be able to file 485 once you enter US on H1. It can be any amount of delay. The only things is; your PD needs to be current at that time.
The thing is I am not sure how long it would take to get my name check clearance so I am thinking of CP.
That is exactly why I said in the above post that that's the one thing you can do and who knows? may be name check gets cleared and if your PD is current and all stars are aligned well they may call you for interview for GC even before your H1 interview (although this is not very likely to happen!) but it would not hurt.
Another thing is that I am on unpaid leave for last 3 months. My company let me worked for first 6 months remotely but then asked me to take unpaid leave. Would it be an issue when I go for interview for CP.
Entirely unrelated question. To make it clear, let me ask you: Were you IN US during that 3 months unpaid leave and you were on H1?? in that case you were out of status for those three months. If that is the case, that might come in your way if they notice it. They may even deny H1 stamp on that basis. and they can raise that during CP interview as well. Talk to your lawyer. If this is the case, it may be safe to go through the route of first getting H1 stamp, come to US and file 485. (once you enter on a valid stamp, all prior out of status violations are sort of forgiven and so they will not create any problem at 485 stage)
Let's assume that if I get interview for CP after a year, wont they ask that I am not working for my current company so why are they doing CP for me.
You dont have to be working for the sponsoring employer at the time of either 485 approval or at the time of CP approval. All you need to have is a letter from employer that says, they will hire you permanently for the job described in your PERM on a permanent basis. That's it. And you and your employer should have good faith intention to do so once GC is approved. GC is for the future job.
And one more thing how long does it take generally to get interview once a person has applied for CP ??
I dont know the precise answer to this question. I think once they receive notification from DOS (which by itself takes few months); they do name check, local police clearance etc and once those things are in line, and your PD is current they will call you for the interview...this may be few months.
Good Luck.
First of all, calm down. Everything will be just fine. If you stress out, you burn your own brain cells.
So my understanding is that if I file for CP then I would be asked to interview in home country for my GC and it could take long once again if it gets stuck in name check.
Yes, that is correct. If you file for CP, your approved I 140 gets forwarded to the consulate and then consulate will process it (if PD is current) and give you interview. They WILL do the name check and if it is not cleared for H1, it is not likely to be cleared for GC. so they will not give interview till your name check is cleared and PD is current.
But if I wait for H-1 name check clearance then I could enter to US and apply for I 485 and even if it takes longer than 6 months, I would get I 185 approved.
That is correct. There is not time limit after approval of I 140 to file 485. You can file it any time after I 140 is filed and if you are stuck there due to name check, you have a reason for the delay as well (just in case someone asks in future; but no one is supposed to ask it any way). So by all means you will be able to file 485 once you enter US on H1. It can be any amount of delay. The only things is; your PD needs to be current at that time.
The thing is I am not sure how long it would take to get my name check clearance so I am thinking of CP.
That is exactly why I said in the above post that that's the one thing you can do and who knows? may be name check gets cleared and if your PD is current and all stars are aligned well they may call you for interview for GC even before your H1 interview (although this is not very likely to happen!) but it would not hurt.
Another thing is that I am on unpaid leave for last 3 months. My company let me worked for first 6 months remotely but then asked me to take unpaid leave. Would it be an issue when I go for interview for CP.
Entirely unrelated question. To make it clear, let me ask you: Were you IN US during that 3 months unpaid leave and you were on H1?? in that case you were out of status for those three months. If that is the case, that might come in your way if they notice it. They may even deny H1 stamp on that basis. and they can raise that during CP interview as well. Talk to your lawyer. If this is the case, it may be safe to go through the route of first getting H1 stamp, come to US and file 485. (once you enter on a valid stamp, all prior out of status violations are sort of forgiven and so they will not create any problem at 485 stage)
Let's assume that if I get interview for CP after a year, wont they ask that I am not working for my current company so why are they doing CP for me.
You dont have to be working for the sponsoring employer at the time of either 485 approval or at the time of CP approval. All you need to have is a letter from employer that says, they will hire you permanently for the job described in your PERM on a permanent basis. That's it. And you and your employer should have good faith intention to do so once GC is approved. GC is for the future job.
And one more thing how long does it take generally to get interview once a person has applied for CP ??
I dont know the precise answer to this question. I think once they receive notification from DOS (which by itself takes few months); they do name check, local police clearance etc and once those things are in line, and your PD is current they will call you for the interview...this may be few months.
Good Luck.
more...
black_logs
05-11 10:43 AM
We are still working on it, the most probable location & time is Bombay Palace at 7 pm but please wait until it is announced officially.
Could some one post the Venue and time? (I guess it is dinner meet)
Thanks
Could some one post the Venue and time? (I guess it is dinner meet)
Thanks
hair #6: Movies » Justin Bieber
CADude
09-26 05:18 PM
You will get couple of July 2nd tracker under "Receipt tracker of 485, EAD and AP applications" category. USCIS forgot about few July 2nd filer or abandoned.
Hi, My application for I485 was received by Texas service centre. I have not received my RN and neither is my check has been cashed yet. I am confused looking at the online dates at www.USCIS.gov. Is there anyone who filled on 2nd of july and have not heard back from USCIS.
Thanks!
Hi, My application for I485 was received by Texas service centre. I have not received my RN and neither is my check has been cashed yet. I am confused looking at the online dates at www.USCIS.gov. Is there anyone who filled on 2nd of july and have not heard back from USCIS.
Thanks!
more...
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
hot justin bieber new pictures
meridiani.planum
09-21 02:15 PM
sri1309..Thanks for your reply but can we get homes for 300 to 400 k there. How about bay area
proper bay area in any decent neighbourhood is going to run anywhere from 600K-2million. For 400k I think the only places in south bay would be either parts of south san jose or Milpitas. Neighborhood is not going to bevery nice.
Another option (depending on where you are working) could be part-way up the bay, say union city, or San Ramon.
Check ziprealty.com
proper bay area in any decent neighbourhood is going to run anywhere from 600K-2million. For 400k I think the only places in south bay would be either parts of south san jose or Milpitas. Neighborhood is not going to bevery nice.
Another option (depending on where you are working) could be part-way up the bay, say union city, or San Ramon.
Check ziprealty.com
more...
house justin bieber wallpaper 2011
reachinus
12-26 08:34 AM
Hi There,
In the substitute you have to report only the pay that you have received and you have to report to DOL if your Employer doesn't pay you atleast for the time that he got paid from the client. But logically speaking he has to pay you from the date you are on his H1.
In the substitute you have to report only the pay that you have received and you have to report to DOL if your Employer doesn't pay you atleast for the time that he got paid from the client. But logically speaking he has to pay you from the date you are on his H1.
tattoo justin bieber album cover
TO BE OR NO TO BE
05-17 01:17 PM
nshah1968
Can you please provide me with the information? I am looking for a lawyer too.
Thanks
Can you please provide me with the information? I am looking for a lawyer too.
Thanks
more...
pictures justin bieber 2011 wallpaper.
ps57002
09-14 06:37 PM
Can we somehow promote on another tri state radio...rbcradio.com I missed out on listening to this one...
dresses justin bieber middle finger to
casinoroyale
01-07 11:47 AM
Sorry aps. I corrected the typo above. Please read my post again. I meant to say "after using EAD".
more...
makeup justin bieber twitter pictures
sidbee
01-02 02:09 PM
Hi Everybody,
I know that nobody has an answer for my question, but still i would like to get the views/inputs from the seniors here , who have experience with USCIS.
When do you think a person with PD of Nov 2007 ,EB3 from India, would be able to file for 485??
I know that nobody has an answer for my question, but still i would like to get the views/inputs from the seniors here , who have experience with USCIS.
When do you think a person with PD of Nov 2007 ,EB3 from India, would be able to file for 485??
girlfriend justin bieber rare photos.
kandhu
01-02 02:27 PM
Hi Everybody,
I know that nobody has an answer for my question, but still i would like to get the views/inputs from the seniors here , who have experience with USCIS.
When do you think a person with PD of Nov 2007 ,EB3 from India, would be able to file for 485??
Welcome to the GC journey!
My GUESS is atleast 5 to 8 years with the current laws.
(I may be too optimisic. It may be even 10+ years !)
I know one of the things that IV is figting for is to apply for I485 even when the dates are not current. (This is just one of the many things that IV is fighting for. Review the below thread for detailed info)
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16298&highlight=year
So please continue to Support & Contribute to IV.
Hope you have a less wait time.
I know that nobody has an answer for my question, but still i would like to get the views/inputs from the seniors here , who have experience with USCIS.
When do you think a person with PD of Nov 2007 ,EB3 from India, would be able to file for 485??
Welcome to the GC journey!
My GUESS is atleast 5 to 8 years with the current laws.
(I may be too optimisic. It may be even 10+ years !)
I know one of the things that IV is figting for is to apply for I485 even when the dates are not current. (This is just one of the many things that IV is fighting for. Review the below thread for detailed info)
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16298&highlight=year
So please continue to Support & Contribute to IV.
Hope you have a less wait time.
hairstyles justin bieber 2011 photoshoot
div_bell_2003
01-06 01:55 PM
Interesting read since my lawyer had informed me specifically that the CBP officer at POE is not supposed to lift one copy of advanced parole, he's supposed to stamp it and hand it back over to me and make a copy for his own records. They have also told me that if a CBP officer looks to lift a copy, we should politely ask him/her if there is any specific reason he needs an original and can't make a copy.
On the same note, if every time they lift a copy, then how can one make more than say 2 trips on one AP ? I have seen lots of people using AP for business travel and they do make more trips.
You need both copies of the AP. The IO will keep one copy and stamp the other one and return it. When I got back to the USA in December 2008, my POE was Miami. My lawyer had told me to take both copies of the AP with me.
When I was in the Secondary room, there was another person who had only one copy of the AP. The IO asked him for the other copy. The dude told the IO that he had only one copy and the lawyer had told him that one copy is enough (you could see that he was nervous). The IO sarcastically told him to change his lawyer. The dude then said that he was not planning on traveling anytime before the expiry of the AP and said that the IO could keep the copy he had submitted. The IO again wryly told him that things don't work that way. He told the dude to take a seat and he wold see what he could do (the IO was actually polite all the time to this dude - even thought he sounded sarcastic at times - especially when he said "I would not waste any more money on this lawyer"). To make a long story short, I saw him get his stamped AP back and we left the room at around the same time).
My advise to you is - take both the copies - you will not regret it.
On the same note, if every time they lift a copy, then how can one make more than say 2 trips on one AP ? I have seen lots of people using AP for business travel and they do make more trips.
You need both copies of the AP. The IO will keep one copy and stamp the other one and return it. When I got back to the USA in December 2008, my POE was Miami. My lawyer had told me to take both copies of the AP with me.
When I was in the Secondary room, there was another person who had only one copy of the AP. The IO asked him for the other copy. The dude told the IO that he had only one copy and the lawyer had told him that one copy is enough (you could see that he was nervous). The IO sarcastically told him to change his lawyer. The dude then said that he was not planning on traveling anytime before the expiry of the AP and said that the IO could keep the copy he had submitted. The IO again wryly told him that things don't work that way. He told the dude to take a seat and he wold see what he could do (the IO was actually polite all the time to this dude - even thought he sounded sarcastic at times - especially when he said "I would not waste any more money on this lawyer"). To make a long story short, I saw him get his stamped AP back and we left the room at around the same time).
My advise to you is - take both the copies - you will not regret it.
looivy
08-14 12:11 PM
That is a relief...
GC9180
10-14 05:08 PM
another suggestion ..check with doctors which visitor's insurance they take
No comments:
Post a Comment