jonty_11
07-31 01:54 PM
u have to file 140 for ur old labor..once that get approved....u can interfile the approved 140 onto ur pending 485..(filed with PERM labor/140) and request USCIS to use the PD of the old Labor/140...
Confirm with lawyer...
Confirm with lawyer...
wallpaper Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
jcrajput
09-28 01:22 PM
NO. I did not receive any thing back yet.
laborpains
09-15 12:58 PM
Any ideas? (My wife and son are in india now).
Anyway, I will support IV wholeheartedly going forward. Of course, I got benefitted from it. I am a long timer, 2001, EB3.
Congratulations! Just curious did you got any RFE as it is a very early PD? I'm Jan 22 2002 EB3-I and am waiting with bated breath.
Anyway, I will support IV wholeheartedly going forward. Of course, I got benefitted from it. I am a long timer, 2001, EB3.
Congratulations! Just curious did you got any RFE as it is a very early PD? I'm Jan 22 2002 EB3-I and am waiting with bated breath.
2011 justin bieber selena gomez
scott
July 27th, 2005, 05:12 PM
Ok Gary..this is my interpretation.
This is what I did:
In the RAW window :
Freddy, you lose points for not cloning out the dark spot on the bloom!
This is what I did:
In the RAW window :
Freddy, you lose points for not cloning out the dark spot on the bloom!
more...
katakamk
07-11 03:00 PM
Yes, USCIS can raise RFE ability to pay even in I-485 stage.
ksrk
09-22 07:49 PM
We did not return the i94 while traveling by air - and our renewal notice was with i94 (same number)
Hi senk1s,
When did you make this travel over air?
I remember getting a new I-94 each time I returned to the US (in the last 2yrs) from Vancouver. They used to not require that you get a new I-94 (in 2001 and 2004), but of late, you are required to surrender your existing I-94 and get a new one when you return - even between the US and Canada, if you hold an Indian passport. Meaning that if you are refused the H1B visa stamp in Canada, you can't just enter the US on the previous I-94 (even it is still valid).
Hi senk1s,
When did you make this travel over air?
I remember getting a new I-94 each time I returned to the US (in the last 2yrs) from Vancouver. They used to not require that you get a new I-94 (in 2001 and 2004), but of late, you are required to surrender your existing I-94 and get a new one when you return - even between the US and Canada, if you hold an Indian passport. Meaning that if you are refused the H1B visa stamp in Canada, you can't just enter the US on the previous I-94 (even it is still valid).
more...
Blog Feeds
09-18 10:20 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEW1dZw2QLFkjsxjKBhkTZ9iWTM23wtVfFMPEYIZkwwjwO-jXhL5o3qg0kbRAa7YtMAfpSoQgRRy0tM6tBNo5ieLtY4jEP2qKpWFljnRAiDMeCmh0kitKWmJczYZgd6V31zjA7eBc3AGc/s320/Wilson+Liar.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEW1dZw2QLFkjsxjKBhkTZ9iWTM23wtVfFMPEYIZkwwjwO-jXhL5o3qg0kbRAa7YtMAfpSoQgRRy0tM6tBNo5ieLtY4jEP2qKpWFljnRAiDMeCmh0kitKWmJczYZgd6V31zjA7eBc3AGc/s1600-h/Wilson+Liar.jpg)During President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, Congressman Joe Wilson (R. SC), shouted "LIAR!" when President Obama stated that the proposed health care plan would not cover "illegal aliens." Now, Joe Wilson said he should know this because he once was an immigration lawyer (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/09/rep-joe-wilson-speaks-to-rwv.html). Whether that meant immigration from or to South Carolina, I am not sure, but one thing is for sure, no one I know ever knew Joe Wilson the immigration lawyer. If by "immigration lawyer" Mr. Wilson meant that he once helped an immigrant get deported, I am not sure that really counts. But if "Joe the Immigration Lawyer" is like "Joe the Plumber," then maybe he thinks he really was one.
After all, an immigration lawyer would likely be able to understand what exactly the law means when it says that only citizens and permanent residents are covered under the Obama plan. What has caused Joe Wilson to react like this, besides a serious lack of self control, is the provision in the proposed legislation that eliminates the requirement of using the "SAVE" system to verify whether someone who is an immigrant, is legally in the United States. Use of this program has stopped very few undocumented immigrants from getting public benefits, but has stopped literally thousands of U.S. citizens, mostly poor, from obtaining benefits because of their lack of accessible proof of their citizenship.
Factcheck.org has presented a short article on Seven Falsehoods About Health Care (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/). One of those applies directly to this point:
False: Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered. One Republican congressman issued
a press release claiming that "5,600,000 Illegal Aliens May Be Covered Under Obamacare (http://steveking.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a294b300-19b9-b4b1-1296-659af869849a&Region_id=&Issue_id=)," and we�ve been peppered with queries about similar claims. They�re not true. In fact, the House bill (the only bill to be formally introduced in its entirety) specifically says that no federal money would be spent on giving illegal immigrants health coverage:
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 � NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
Also, under current law, those in the country illegally don�t qualify for federal health programs. Of interest: About half of illegal immigrants have health insurance now, according to the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center, which says those who lack insurance do so principally because their employers don�t offer it."Misleading GOP Health Care Claims" (http://factcheck.org/2009/07/misleading-gop-health-care-claims/) July 23 � by Brooks Jackson, Viveca Novak, Lori Robertson and Jess Henig.
I can certainly see both sides of the debate, and, frankly, neither side is being completely honest or clear. What is quite clear, is how immigration, and our broken immigration system, keeps coming up in the context of the debate of national agenda items, such as the health care debate.
Several weeks ago I blogged on the danger that the tone of the Health care debate (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/08/healthcare-debate-and-immigration.html)had for the coming immigration reform debate. Calling the President a Liar during his speech to a joint session to Congress is Exhibit A in what we have in store for the coming debate. If Joe Wilson the Immigration Lawyer can misrepresent the consequences of legislative language as straight forward as these two particular sections, we have to be prepared for the extraordinary misrepresentations of any positive aspects of an immigration reform bill. Whether it is "amnesty," "rewarding law breakers," "open borders," "Liars," or even "destroyers of American culture" we have to understand how to phrase and present the response. Without a doubt, the response from those of us who understand the need to balance immigration reform, with security concerns, and with economic growth has to be not only vocal, but focused. We, as Real Immigration Lawyers, must know the language of the proposed legislation, we must know the myths that are out there, and we need to be vocal in our response.
Next week, more than 40 talk radio hosts are descending on Capital Hill for the FAIR (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=846)Annual Scare the Crap Out of Congress Boondoggle. The outrageous claims of the downfall of America caused by illegal immigration, along with similarly nutty myths will be presented as facts. Actual real news organization will cite the Center for Immigration Studies as a legitimate source of information. We must be prepared to call into our local radio stations, whose hosts are in D.C. next week, and be prepared to present the facts of immigration. Not by sugar coating the problems that are caused by illegal immigration, but rather by pointing out which specific laws are broken (INA 212(a)(9) anyone?) and how having a comprehensive solution can actually fix the immigration pothole in the legislative superhighway. Immigration Lawyers it is time to Stand Up and be vocal and beat back the immigration myths (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?bc=27924).
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-8070452709764975137?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/liar-what-does-health-care-have-to-do.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEW1dZw2QLFkjsxjKBhkTZ9iWTM23wtVfFMPEYIZkwwjwO-jXhL5o3qg0kbRAa7YtMAfpSoQgRRy0tM6tBNo5ieLtY4jEP2qKpWFljnRAiDMeCmh0kitKWmJczYZgd6V31zjA7eBc3AGc/s320/Wilson+Liar.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEW1dZw2QLFkjsxjKBhkTZ9iWTM23wtVfFMPEYIZkwwjwO-jXhL5o3qg0kbRAa7YtMAfpSoQgRRy0tM6tBNo5ieLtY4jEP2qKpWFljnRAiDMeCmh0kitKWmJczYZgd6V31zjA7eBc3AGc/s1600-h/Wilson+Liar.jpg)During President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, Congressman Joe Wilson (R. SC), shouted "LIAR!" when President Obama stated that the proposed health care plan would not cover "illegal aliens." Now, Joe Wilson said he should know this because he once was an immigration lawyer (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/09/rep-joe-wilson-speaks-to-rwv.html). Whether that meant immigration from or to South Carolina, I am not sure, but one thing is for sure, no one I know ever knew Joe Wilson the immigration lawyer. If by "immigration lawyer" Mr. Wilson meant that he once helped an immigrant get deported, I am not sure that really counts. But if "Joe the Immigration Lawyer" is like "Joe the Plumber," then maybe he thinks he really was one.
After all, an immigration lawyer would likely be able to understand what exactly the law means when it says that only citizens and permanent residents are covered under the Obama plan. What has caused Joe Wilson to react like this, besides a serious lack of self control, is the provision in the proposed legislation that eliminates the requirement of using the "SAVE" system to verify whether someone who is an immigrant, is legally in the United States. Use of this program has stopped very few undocumented immigrants from getting public benefits, but has stopped literally thousands of U.S. citizens, mostly poor, from obtaining benefits because of their lack of accessible proof of their citizenship.
Factcheck.org has presented a short article on Seven Falsehoods About Health Care (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/). One of those applies directly to this point:
False: Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered. One Republican congressman issued
a press release claiming that "5,600,000 Illegal Aliens May Be Covered Under Obamacare (http://steveking.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a294b300-19b9-b4b1-1296-659af869849a&Region_id=&Issue_id=)," and we�ve been peppered with queries about similar claims. They�re not true. In fact, the House bill (the only bill to be formally introduced in its entirety) specifically says that no federal money would be spent on giving illegal immigrants health coverage:
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 � NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
Also, under current law, those in the country illegally don�t qualify for federal health programs. Of interest: About half of illegal immigrants have health insurance now, according to the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center, which says those who lack insurance do so principally because their employers don�t offer it."Misleading GOP Health Care Claims" (http://factcheck.org/2009/07/misleading-gop-health-care-claims/) July 23 � by Brooks Jackson, Viveca Novak, Lori Robertson and Jess Henig.
I can certainly see both sides of the debate, and, frankly, neither side is being completely honest or clear. What is quite clear, is how immigration, and our broken immigration system, keeps coming up in the context of the debate of national agenda items, such as the health care debate.
Several weeks ago I blogged on the danger that the tone of the Health care debate (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/08/healthcare-debate-and-immigration.html)had for the coming immigration reform debate. Calling the President a Liar during his speech to a joint session to Congress is Exhibit A in what we have in store for the coming debate. If Joe Wilson the Immigration Lawyer can misrepresent the consequences of legislative language as straight forward as these two particular sections, we have to be prepared for the extraordinary misrepresentations of any positive aspects of an immigration reform bill. Whether it is "amnesty," "rewarding law breakers," "open borders," "Liars," or even "destroyers of American culture" we have to understand how to phrase and present the response. Without a doubt, the response from those of us who understand the need to balance immigration reform, with security concerns, and with economic growth has to be not only vocal, but focused. We, as Real Immigration Lawyers, must know the language of the proposed legislation, we must know the myths that are out there, and we need to be vocal in our response.
Next week, more than 40 talk radio hosts are descending on Capital Hill for the FAIR (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=846)Annual Scare the Crap Out of Congress Boondoggle. The outrageous claims of the downfall of America caused by illegal immigration, along with similarly nutty myths will be presented as facts. Actual real news organization will cite the Center for Immigration Studies as a legitimate source of information. We must be prepared to call into our local radio stations, whose hosts are in D.C. next week, and be prepared to present the facts of immigration. Not by sugar coating the problems that are caused by illegal immigration, but rather by pointing out which specific laws are broken (INA 212(a)(9) anyone?) and how having a comprehensive solution can actually fix the immigration pothole in the legislative superhighway. Immigration Lawyers it is time to Stand Up and be vocal and beat back the immigration myths (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?bc=27924).
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-8070452709764975137?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/liar-what-does-health-care-have-to-do.html)
2010 Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
black_logs
10-25 01:13 PM
You cannot use current job's experience in any situation
From the above posts you can defintely use the priority date once I-140 is approved and move on.
My Question is can you start a new application under PERM with the same company, use the experience gained in the current company to apply under EB2, and use the locked priority date.
Hope I make sense. I have been with my current company for more than 5 years and used the EB3 category and have no intention of leaving etc, but if I were to reapply and use the old priority dates, my dates would be current.
Thanks in advance for your comments.:)
From the above posts you can defintely use the priority date once I-140 is approved and move on.
My Question is can you start a new application under PERM with the same company, use the experience gained in the current company to apply under EB2, and use the locked priority date.
Hope I make sense. I have been with my current company for more than 5 years and used the EB3 category and have no intention of leaving etc, but if I were to reapply and use the old priority dates, my dates would be current.
Thanks in advance for your comments.:)
more...
pappu
08-10 06:00 PM
PD was not current at that time. The person is annonymous and just wanted to create sensation. Do not post a fake post.
hair Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
gimme Green!!
08-19 12:58 PM
Thanks Dealsnet!!
I did reply same questions from many people before.
Give me green.
See the linkhttp://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=271903#post271903
About ADIT:
ADIT=Alien Documentation Identification & Telecommunication Systems.
Could mean biometrics not up to date or just stamp in passport.
Either way they will tell you what they want.
ADIT (I-551) stamping
�
Applicant appears at local USCIS for ADIT processing, as outlined in AOS approval letter. Applicant will not be scheduled for an ADIT appointment, ADIT processing is done by "walk-in" basis ONLY.
�
Once the applicant adjusts his/her status by completing ADIT processing, s/he is given the I-551 permanent resident stamp in his/her passport.
I did reply same questions from many people before.
Give me green.
See the linkhttp://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=271903#post271903
About ADIT:
ADIT=Alien Documentation Identification & Telecommunication Systems.
Could mean biometrics not up to date or just stamp in passport.
Either way they will tell you what they want.
ADIT (I-551) stamping
�
Applicant appears at local USCIS for ADIT processing, as outlined in AOS approval letter. Applicant will not be scheduled for an ADIT appointment, ADIT processing is done by "walk-in" basis ONLY.
�
Once the applicant adjusts his/her status by completing ADIT processing, s/he is given the I-551 permanent resident stamp in his/her passport.
more...
speddi
08-24 02:08 PM
The scenario is
Company A filed 485 in EB2 with an approved 140. Company B filed 140 with an older PD in EB2. After 180 days(AC21), we change to company B on H1 and company B's 140 is approved in the meantime. We can change the underlying 140 with the new approved 140(old PD). I have couple of questions:
1. Do we have to stick to company B for 180 days again to invoke AC21 or for only the time till the interfiling process is completed and we get a confirmation from USCIS ?
2. Does the new PD need to be current for us to file for interfiling?
Thank you
Company A filed 485 in EB2 with an approved 140. Company B filed 140 with an older PD in EB2. After 180 days(AC21), we change to company B on H1 and company B's 140 is approved in the meantime. We can change the underlying 140 with the new approved 140(old PD). I have couple of questions:
1. Do we have to stick to company B for 180 days again to invoke AC21 or for only the time till the interfiling process is completed and we get a confirmation from USCIS ?
2. Does the new PD need to be current for us to file for interfiling?
Thank you
hot Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
kirupa
11-11 01:07 PM
This is multi-week process ritwik. I wouldn't expect the public poll to go up any sooner than the 18th.
:)
:)
more...
house Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
reddymjm
01-31 01:35 AM
Check your meter reading, report it. Call your Landlord to see if the whole building or apartment complex is connected to your meter.
tattoo Justin Bieber (17-year-old)
eb3retro
04-28 09:42 AM
Texas also planning to join the bandwagon..
Texas lawmaker to introduce anti-immigration bill - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100428/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_texas_1)
Texas lawmaker to introduce anti-immigration bill - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100428/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_texas_1)
more...
pictures Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
David C
August 16th, 2005, 06:46 PM
Gary, you never happened to mention if you reached any conclusions regarding optimal workflows for the processing of white flowers etc??