eb3retro
05-29 10:30 PM
I have an emergency to go to India to take care of my sickly mom and I need to return back to work on July first. I am also trying to get emergency appointment. I couldnt. Could you please suggest the way I can get emergency appointment in any of the consulate.
sent u a pm pls respond. thanks
sent u a pm pls respond. thanks
wallpaper Golf MK1 GTI | Volkswagen Golf
psk79
10-15 01:10 PM
Is this her first time into US? if so, i guess they are trying to make sure your h1b is still valid. Since they see that you entered on AP, it might be confusing them. I am assuming you work for the same h1 employer who also sponsored your GC. Now all attorneys have told us that the law says you can resume your h1b once you are back on AP but lot of IO's don't care about it. Now you can just send an employer/personal letter stating that you are currently in the same job for which your H1 is approved and also have a I140 pending/approved for the same. Mention that you are still on H1b while you entered using your AP. Hence you never got your H1b visa stamped at the consulate. It shouldn't be a problem unless you are trying to get H$4 via a H1b from a former employer while you are working on EAD for someone else.
snowshoe
11-15 08:28 AM
We (3 of us from the PA state chapter) had a meeting with Congressman Joe Sastak's office staff in Media, PA.
The staff member was completely unaware of our issues (other than, FBI name check takes long time and USCIS processing is slow). However, she was eager to understand our problems.
She recommended that we should meet the office staff in DC since they handle issues related to legislations.
The staff member was completely unaware of our issues (other than, FBI name check takes long time and USCIS processing is slow). However, she was eager to understand our problems.
She recommended that we should meet the office staff in DC since they handle issues related to legislations.
2011 This is Monkey#39;s VW Golf Mk1!
marlon2006
06-14 11:30 AM
Yes. It seems that NY was a little behind NSC.
It is a very, very inconvenient situation to be in. We are getting older and this lack of professional freedom has potential to ruin our careers you know.
Since it is now on Oct/2001, it seems you should be getting closer to file I-485. Chances are you will be able to see this going to Nov/2001 as early as next month ! That could give you some relief.
I started my masters, but ironically, we are not eligible for in-state tuition therefore I put studies on hold, waiting for the GC. It is hard paying from our own pockets, it is very expensive and at the same time I already received job offers from employers in this area that would be willing to pay the graduate studies 100%, but again, I am waiting for the GC so that I could move on.
Wow, so you were able to file I-140 and I-485 at the same time? My PD is 11/01 but due to retrogression we are waiting for the visa numbers to become current to file :mad:
It is a very, very inconvenient situation to be in. We are getting older and this lack of professional freedom has potential to ruin our careers you know.
Since it is now on Oct/2001, it seems you should be getting closer to file I-485. Chances are you will be able to see this going to Nov/2001 as early as next month ! That could give you some relief.
I started my masters, but ironically, we are not eligible for in-state tuition therefore I put studies on hold, waiting for the GC. It is hard paying from our own pockets, it is very expensive and at the same time I already received job offers from employers in this area that would be willing to pay the graduate studies 100%, but again, I am waiting for the GC so that I could move on.
Wow, so you were able to file I-140 and I-485 at the same time? My PD is 11/01 but due to retrogression we are waiting for the visa numbers to become current to file :mad:
more...
cbrnet
06-10 02:10 PM
Hi,
I was tested positive with the skin test and by chest x-ray turned out to be negative. Also my family doctor prescribed a medication for 6 months course and I got the letter from the doctor after 6 months confirming the course of medication. The USCIS sent an RFE when they were about to process my I-485 and I sent the letter from the doctor confirming my chest x-ray was negative and the letter supporting the completion of 6 months medication.
Thanks
Kumar
I was tested positive with the skin test and by chest x-ray turned out to be negative. Also my family doctor prescribed a medication for 6 months course and I got the letter from the doctor after 6 months confirming the course of medication. The USCIS sent an RFE when they were about to process my I-485 and I sent the letter from the doctor confirming my chest x-ray was negative and the letter supporting the completion of 6 months medication.
Thanks
Kumar
santa123
08-15 07:21 AM
Welcome back vdlrao...
what does the SEP VB indicate to you?
you had predicted that there will be a mild retro and does the fwd movement indicate better days ahead?
We IVians look fwd to your analysis and insight. Thanks!
what does the SEP VB indicate to you?
you had predicted that there will be a mild retro and does the fwd movement indicate better days ahead?
We IVians look fwd to your analysis and insight. Thanks!
more...
alterego
09-17 11:16 PM
go to ECGFMG.org, you will get a lot more info and more accurate info there.
2010 Jetex Exhaust System Golf Mk1
NikNikon
May 23rd, 2005, 08:43 PM
Gary, I'm just thinking of mine which is a circular polarizer. You rotate the polarizer to achieve the desired amount of polarization. So I can rotate it one way and either darken or lighten the sky. All but your last pic looked as if it was darker on the right side which lead me to the assumption it was a circular type. There's a linear type too which I have never used so I'm not sure how it works, but I imagine it doesn't rotate (anyone?).
more...
ram_ram
11-01 07:05 PM
Legally speaking, You should not change the Metro Location for which the labor is applied. Exemption is Consulting companies can specify alternate location as 'Various client locations as specified by the employer'. Primary location would be the Head Office. So it all depends on what is specified in the labor.
Hello
My PD is March 2006 and my 6th year on H1B ends in March 2007. My LC was approved in March 2006 and I-140 got approved in July 2006. My company has relocated me to a different state. (same job, same title and company)
I have updated INS about my address change by sending AR-11. Would the job location change (from CA to NJ) have any impact on my GC processing?
Could you please advice if you info on this?
Regards
Hello
My PD is March 2006 and my 6th year on H1B ends in March 2007. My LC was approved in March 2006 and I-140 got approved in July 2006. My company has relocated me to a different state. (same job, same title and company)
I have updated INS about my address change by sending AR-11. Would the job location change (from CA to NJ) have any impact on my GC processing?
Could you please advice if you info on this?
Regards
hair VWVortex.com - MK1 pic
logiclife
02-16 06:12 PM
The house bill HR 4437 does not have little benefit for legal employees. It has NOTHING for legal employees. NOTHING.
USCIS wont allow 485 applications coz its slow and cant process everyone, it will allow filing based on number of applicants it expects compared to number of visas available. And the beauty of this thing is...USCIS has NO FRIGGIN CLUE how many 485 applications it would expect if it moved the PD forward by so and so date. They are doing this on guesstimate basis. And another beautiful thing is that if they play too safe, the quota of 140 K might not even be used fully even this year in 2006. Those unused visas will sit there either unused or issue to our dear nurses under Schedule A.
USCIS wont allow 485 applications coz its slow and cant process everyone, it will allow filing based on number of applicants it expects compared to number of visas available. And the beauty of this thing is...USCIS has NO FRIGGIN CLUE how many 485 applications it would expect if it moved the PD forward by so and so date. They are doing this on guesstimate basis. And another beautiful thing is that if they play too safe, the quota of 140 K might not even be used fully even this year in 2006. Those unused visas will sit there either unused or issue to our dear nurses under Schedule A.
more...
WillIBLucky
12-22 01:18 PM
If you read clearly then it says that you can keep the PD in your new employer GC process. You may loose that opportunity only if there was a fraud in the previous I140 and USICS revokes that I140.
once the alien’s Form I-140 petition has been approved, the alien beneficiary retains his or her priority date as established by the filing of the labor certification for any future Form I-140 petitions, unless the previously approved Form I-140 petition has been revoked because of fraud or willful misrepresentation.
So if your current I140 is clean then you will be able to use the PD in your next application for GC with the new employer.
GC_2007,
When we change employer i think we can't keep the Priority date
Its been clearly stated bolded when you change employer you will lose your 1-140 PD....any thoughts or am i misreading it.
once the alien’s Form I-140 petition has been approved, the alien beneficiary retains his or her priority date as established by the filing of the labor certification for any future Form I-140 petitions, unless the previously approved Form I-140 petition has been revoked because of fraud or willful misrepresentation. This includes cases where a change of employer has occurred; however, the new employer must obtain a new labor certification if the classification requested requires a labor certification (see
the section on successorship of interest).
(A) Determining the Priority Date. In general, if a petition is supported by an individual labor certification issued by DOL, the priority date is the earliest date upon which the labor certification application was filed with DOL. In those cases where the alien’s priority date is established by the filing of the labor certification, once the alien’s Form I-140 petition has been approved, the alien beneficiary retains his or her priority date as established by the filing of the labor certification for any future Form I-140 petitions, unless the previously approved Form I-140 petition has been revoked because of fraud or willful misrepresentation. This includes cases where a change of employer has occurred; however, the new employer must obtain a new labor certification if the classification requested requires a labor certification (see
the section on successorship of interest).
once the alien’s Form I-140 petition has been approved, the alien beneficiary retains his or her priority date as established by the filing of the labor certification for any future Form I-140 petitions, unless the previously approved Form I-140 petition has been revoked because of fraud or willful misrepresentation.
So if your current I140 is clean then you will be able to use the PD in your next application for GC with the new employer.
GC_2007,
When we change employer i think we can't keep the Priority date
Its been clearly stated bolded when you change employer you will lose your 1-140 PD....any thoughts or am i misreading it.
once the alien’s Form I-140 petition has been approved, the alien beneficiary retains his or her priority date as established by the filing of the labor certification for any future Form I-140 petitions, unless the previously approved Form I-140 petition has been revoked because of fraud or willful misrepresentation. This includes cases where a change of employer has occurred; however, the new employer must obtain a new labor certification if the classification requested requires a labor certification (see
the section on successorship of interest).
(A) Determining the Priority Date. In general, if a petition is supported by an individual labor certification issued by DOL, the priority date is the earliest date upon which the labor certification application was filed with DOL. In those cases where the alien’s priority date is established by the filing of the labor certification, once the alien’s Form I-140 petition has been approved, the alien beneficiary retains his or her priority date as established by the filing of the labor certification for any future Form I-140 petitions, unless the previously approved Form I-140 petition has been revoked because of fraud or willful misrepresentation. This includes cases where a change of employer has occurred; however, the new employer must obtain a new labor certification if the classification requested requires a labor certification (see
the section on successorship of interest).
hot Sticker: VW Golf (Mk1) GTi
sanjay02
11-21 12:55 PM
I saw the following status on I-131
Application Type: I131, APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
On November 21, 2007 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service.
Does it mean that I-131 is approved?
Application Type: I131, APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
On November 21, 2007 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service.
Does it mean that I-131 is approved?
more...
house VW Golf Mk1 (#39;74-#39;84)
nixstor
08-23 10:26 PM
I was thinking that BEC's have 300K odd cases. Are you sure its only 180K?
tattoo Volkswagen Golf GTI Pirelli
raysaikat
01-06 02:06 PM
Hi Harry mine was an EB2 case to begin with, no porting. Only this is my timing was not correct and I missed the Jul 07 window, the labor filing took way too long. So kind of in the same boat as you, trying to find legal avenues to upgrade to EB1. Let�s wait for some advice to come by. Looking at your case as well I believe that EB1-A is the only option.
There is nothing called "upgrade". You can file a second I-140 as EB1-A in parallel. Other than the money and energy spent, there is no downside. AFAIK, there is no "eligibility" for filing EB1-A. In the petition, you must demonstrate that you meet the minimum number of criteria described by USCIS.
USCIS - EB-1 Eligibility and Filing (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=3a4df271ab0fd010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=91919c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
There is nothing called "upgrade". You can file a second I-140 as EB1-A in parallel. Other than the money and energy spent, there is no downside. AFAIK, there is no "eligibility" for filing EB1-A. In the petition, you must demonstrate that you meet the minimum number of criteria described by USCIS.
USCIS - EB-1 Eligibility and Filing (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=3a4df271ab0fd010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=91919c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
more...
pictures Volkswagen Golf Mk1
eb3retro
02-24 03:49 PM
To whom it may concern, please, help us. Everything we ever learned from the U.S. about truth and justice is suddenly being deprived of any meaning by the U.S. itself. The hardest part for us is believing that everything we�ve based our lives on � the American way, has no merit.
I was deported from the United States of America on February 18, 2005. I lived there nearly 30 years since I was 20 months old, when my mother crossed the Rio Grande into the country with me illegally. I was given an opportunity to become legal under the NACARA law but was to afraid of being deported like Maricela Soza was under the same law and didn�t go through with the entire process. I have both a husband and a son who are U.S. citizens but I am permanently prohibited by Immigration law from immigrating to the United States, while at the same time I am allowed to visit. Due to my drug convictions amounting to possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. It�s Immigration law�s contradicting policies which I find disturbing.
U.S. Immigration is concerned with their citizens� welfare but it is denying my husband�s and my son�s requests to have me back by their side for good. Although Immigration law will value my wish to receive admission into the United States. Needless to say I prefer returning, immigrating and remaining in the country by my family�s side. That�s not taking into account the fact that I am still homesick and continue experiencing culture shock in Nicaragua. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing to my family and I is cruel, inhumane and unpatriotic. No free country�s government has any business deciding how families should be formed or whose personal choice is agreeable or not. Like that of my son�s and husband�s choice to overlook my shortcomings and begin our lives over together again.
The 212(d)(3) Waiver allows a visitor�s visa into the U.S. to be issued to an Alien like me if I show evidence of rehabilitation such as becoming a practicing professional with a U.S. job offer. Sometimes with lone proof of a bank savings account, school registration and satisfactory travel record. On the other hand there isn�t one waiver available for United States Citizens who wish to rebuild their lives with an Alien deported for any drug charge(s) of possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. Not only are Andrew�s(my son) and Thomas�(my husband) needs being ignored but my needs are being placed before their own. An act I dare name TREASON.
How much more is the United States citizens� welfare secured if an Alien with an undesirable drug history enters the United States merely to visit and not to immigrate? Shouldn�t all United States citizens� needs and rights within and from their country � such as my husband�s and my son�s, come before any Alien�s need or right to receive admission into the U.S., including my own? Also, shouldn�t Family-Based Immigration take first place over �Alien travel� for any reason?
I regret to say it�s these types of injustices with devastating consequences to the recipient�s and his/her immediate relatives� personal lives remaining raveled, much more unacknowledged that play a large role in the cause for conflict concerning disloyalty and unpopularity among U.S. citizens and foreign nationals inside and outside of the United States. I trust that once this oversight is brought to DHS�s attention they will not knowingly continue punishing my husband and my son for loving me, an Alien who once stumbled while attempting to survive in the U.S.. I�m afraid to imagine how many individuals involved in cases like my family�s and mine go on thinking that the U.S. is a bad country for having the audacity to pass judgment on them. I�ve had to believe there�s a glitch somewhere in immigration law caused by simple human error. I can�t accept that the U.S. I grew to know as a loving, Christian country with caring values is intentionally causing my loved ones and I grief. It goes without saying that as much as the United States has a duty to protect its citizens it also has a duty to be equally diplomatic toward foreigners and not continue persecuting the one or the other long after any condemning sentence has been exacted and executed. I know the United States of America will do right by my son, my husband, me, and the rest of its citizens and foreign nationals in our predicament.
We want the 212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Visas Waiver made into an Immigrant Visas Waiver for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens to make sure United States citizens receive competent protection from the Department of Homeland Security and adequate protection from the United States of America. I believe a Waiver should be available to me for my deportation charge including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana so my husband and son can claim me and I can immigrate to the U.S.. But immigration law only makes such a Waiver available to Foreign Nationals who wish to travel to the U.S.(and who also have the same charge as me: deportation including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana). My husband�s and my son�s Freedom Of Belief civil liberty is being violated because their belief is being discriminated against. I am not able to immigrate to the U.S. because immigration law doesn�t allow me a Waiver enabling my husband or son to claim me successfully. If I had a Waiver available to me they wouldn�t have to be at this crossroads making their case public in the courts, therefore their Right To Privacy is also being violated as a result of their belief being discriminated against. Please, help bring justice to these afflicted, we need your input. How should we proceed?
crap..who are you.???
I was deported from the United States of America on February 18, 2005. I lived there nearly 30 years since I was 20 months old, when my mother crossed the Rio Grande into the country with me illegally. I was given an opportunity to become legal under the NACARA law but was to afraid of being deported like Maricela Soza was under the same law and didn�t go through with the entire process. I have both a husband and a son who are U.S. citizens but I am permanently prohibited by Immigration law from immigrating to the United States, while at the same time I am allowed to visit. Due to my drug convictions amounting to possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. It�s Immigration law�s contradicting policies which I find disturbing.
U.S. Immigration is concerned with their citizens� welfare but it is denying my husband�s and my son�s requests to have me back by their side for good. Although Immigration law will value my wish to receive admission into the United States. Needless to say I prefer returning, immigrating and remaining in the country by my family�s side. That�s not taking into account the fact that I am still homesick and continue experiencing culture shock in Nicaragua. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing to my family and I is cruel, inhumane and unpatriotic. No free country�s government has any business deciding how families should be formed or whose personal choice is agreeable or not. Like that of my son�s and husband�s choice to overlook my shortcomings and begin our lives over together again.
The 212(d)(3) Waiver allows a visitor�s visa into the U.S. to be issued to an Alien like me if I show evidence of rehabilitation such as becoming a practicing professional with a U.S. job offer. Sometimes with lone proof of a bank savings account, school registration and satisfactory travel record. On the other hand there isn�t one waiver available for United States Citizens who wish to rebuild their lives with an Alien deported for any drug charge(s) of possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. Not only are Andrew�s(my son) and Thomas�(my husband) needs being ignored but my needs are being placed before their own. An act I dare name TREASON.
How much more is the United States citizens� welfare secured if an Alien with an undesirable drug history enters the United States merely to visit and not to immigrate? Shouldn�t all United States citizens� needs and rights within and from their country � such as my husband�s and my son�s, come before any Alien�s need or right to receive admission into the U.S., including my own? Also, shouldn�t Family-Based Immigration take first place over �Alien travel� for any reason?
I regret to say it�s these types of injustices with devastating consequences to the recipient�s and his/her immediate relatives� personal lives remaining raveled, much more unacknowledged that play a large role in the cause for conflict concerning disloyalty and unpopularity among U.S. citizens and foreign nationals inside and outside of the United States. I trust that once this oversight is brought to DHS�s attention they will not knowingly continue punishing my husband and my son for loving me, an Alien who once stumbled while attempting to survive in the U.S.. I�m afraid to imagine how many individuals involved in cases like my family�s and mine go on thinking that the U.S. is a bad country for having the audacity to pass judgment on them. I�ve had to believe there�s a glitch somewhere in immigration law caused by simple human error. I can�t accept that the U.S. I grew to know as a loving, Christian country with caring values is intentionally causing my loved ones and I grief. It goes without saying that as much as the United States has a duty to protect its citizens it also has a duty to be equally diplomatic toward foreigners and not continue persecuting the one or the other long after any condemning sentence has been exacted and executed. I know the United States of America will do right by my son, my husband, me, and the rest of its citizens and foreign nationals in our predicament.
We want the 212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Visas Waiver made into an Immigrant Visas Waiver for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens to make sure United States citizens receive competent protection from the Department of Homeland Security and adequate protection from the United States of America. I believe a Waiver should be available to me for my deportation charge including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana so my husband and son can claim me and I can immigrate to the U.S.. But immigration law only makes such a Waiver available to Foreign Nationals who wish to travel to the U.S.(and who also have the same charge as me: deportation including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana). My husband�s and my son�s Freedom Of Belief civil liberty is being violated because their belief is being discriminated against. I am not able to immigrate to the U.S. because immigration law doesn�t allow me a Waiver enabling my husband or son to claim me successfully. If I had a Waiver available to me they wouldn�t have to be at this crossroads making their case public in the courts, therefore their Right To Privacy is also being violated as a result of their belief being discriminated against. Please, help bring justice to these afflicted, we need your input. How should we proceed?
crap..who are you.???
dresses The VW Rabbit/Golf Mk1 is dead
seeking_GC
07-11 10:56 PM
This is beginning to look more and more like a organized and deliberate attempt to block people from filing for AOS.If the mysterious "knowledgeable official" quoted on the website can be summoned in court- that would be game over for the USCIS right there......
http://www.usimmlaw.com/current_information.htm
Copying the contents of the website below :
Visa numbers WERE available July 2nd!!
We have confirmed with a knowledgeable official in the Department of State Visa Office that USCIS was requesting visa numbers on Sunday July 1st, and Monday morning July 2nd - and that visa numbers were still being issued as late as the morning of July 2nd!
In fact, close to 30,000 visa numbers were requested and issued in July - through the morning of July 2nd. And we believe that many - if not most - of the requests made in the first two days of July were for applicants whose priority dates were not current in June!
So how can USCIS refuse to accept I-485 filings received BEFORE the State Department issued its notice that all visa numbers had been used???? We have not yet confirmed the return of any I-485s filed in July. But we do know that applications were reaching the USCIS before the State Department announcement - and while the USCIS was frantically working to use up the entire year's allocation.
USCIS did not use all visa numbers before July 2nd.
Did USCIS actually use the visa numbers it requested????
Historically, the USCIS doesn't request a visa number from the Department of State until it is ready to grant the adjustment of status application. US Consuls overseas request visa numbers the month before they intend to issue the immigrant visa. This is the reason why consuls return about ten percent of the visa numbers requested - and why USCIS does not generally return any numbers.
In fact, in making allocations of visa numbers, the Department of State factors in an expected return rate for consuls - but not for the USCIS. And the USCIS - before this June - used about 85% of the total immigrant visa numbers available.
However, already this month, the USCIS has been returning visa numbers. This confirms our earlier suspicion that the only way the USCIS could request 68,000 visa numbers in a matter of weeks was to request them in advance of adjudicating cases.
We believe USCIS exhausted the visa numbers by simply requesting them - not by using them. If so, and for reasons we will post shortly, we believe that over 30,000 visa numbers requested by USCIS will go unused - and will be wasted this year!
http://www.usimmlaw.com/current_information.htm
Copying the contents of the website below :
Visa numbers WERE available July 2nd!!
We have confirmed with a knowledgeable official in the Department of State Visa Office that USCIS was requesting visa numbers on Sunday July 1st, and Monday morning July 2nd - and that visa numbers were still being issued as late as the morning of July 2nd!
In fact, close to 30,000 visa numbers were requested and issued in July - through the morning of July 2nd. And we believe that many - if not most - of the requests made in the first two days of July were for applicants whose priority dates were not current in June!
So how can USCIS refuse to accept I-485 filings received BEFORE the State Department issued its notice that all visa numbers had been used???? We have not yet confirmed the return of any I-485s filed in July. But we do know that applications were reaching the USCIS before the State Department announcement - and while the USCIS was frantically working to use up the entire year's allocation.
USCIS did not use all visa numbers before July 2nd.
Did USCIS actually use the visa numbers it requested????
Historically, the USCIS doesn't request a visa number from the Department of State until it is ready to grant the adjustment of status application. US Consuls overseas request visa numbers the month before they intend to issue the immigrant visa. This is the reason why consuls return about ten percent of the visa numbers requested - and why USCIS does not generally return any numbers.
In fact, in making allocations of visa numbers, the Department of State factors in an expected return rate for consuls - but not for the USCIS. And the USCIS - before this June - used about 85% of the total immigrant visa numbers available.
However, already this month, the USCIS has been returning visa numbers. This confirms our earlier suspicion that the only way the USCIS could request 68,000 visa numbers in a matter of weeks was to request them in advance of adjudicating cases.
We believe USCIS exhausted the visa numbers by simply requesting them - not by using them. If so, and for reasons we will post shortly, we believe that over 30,000 visa numbers requested by USCIS will go unused - and will be wasted this year!
more...
makeup Golf Mk1 - UrbanTuning
walking_dude
09-07 01:08 PM
IV Core,
I have chosen to participate in the Law makers meeting and received the Talking points ( no confirmed appointments yet)
I know IV has tailored it's agenda after much thought and deliberation. However, it's my personal opinion that some points may need to be tailored based on the party affiliation of the law maker we are speaking to, as one size doesn't fit all.
Pro-labor demands may find resonance with a Congressman of labor background, but may not sit well the pro-employer Republican. ( point 5 of IV agenda). Also Point 7 may not be liked by a Democrat as it places haves before the havenots.
My question is can we tailor it based on whom we are speaking to or keep it standard if some points are disliked by the lawmakers?
I haven't mentioned the actual points as I'm not sure if they can be discussed here. Is it okay to discuss it here? Or is it better discussed offline?
I have chosen to participate in the Law makers meeting and received the Talking points ( no confirmed appointments yet)
I know IV has tailored it's agenda after much thought and deliberation. However, it's my personal opinion that some points may need to be tailored based on the party affiliation of the law maker we are speaking to, as one size doesn't fit all.
Pro-labor demands may find resonance with a Congressman of labor background, but may not sit well the pro-employer Republican. ( point 5 of IV agenda). Also Point 7 may not be liked by a Democrat as it places haves before the havenots.
My question is can we tailor it based on whom we are speaking to or keep it standard if some points are disliked by the lawmakers?
I haven't mentioned the actual points as I'm not sure if they can be discussed here. Is it okay to discuss it here? Or is it better discussed offline?
girlfriend 1) VW Golf Mk1 GTi 1.8
sledge_hammer
05-14 05:57 PM
^^^^
hairstyles New nov springs Mk1+vw+gti
belmontboy
12-04 10:25 PM
http://minx.cc/?post=279217
you live your life dude, don't let any other M'fer control it!!!
you live your life dude, don't let any other M'fer control it!!!
kondur_007
10-30 04:06 PM
In my case - which is little different than you since I'm actually transferring my job to a different subsidiary of the same employer with employer's blessing - attorney advised to file AC21 even though I had just received my GC. It sounds counter-intuitive but his logic behind it was as follows: USCIS will surely reject AC21 letter stating the candidate has already received GC. You can then keep this response in your file and use it to defend your case if there is any problem down the road (for example, during your citizenship processing) since you had informed USCIS and they themselves said it's not necessary. In case they do not reject your AC21 request you will still be fine since it means you invoked AC21 even though you got your GC so it should still be okay to switch before 6 months.
As always this is one attorney's personal opinion/strategy so please consult your own attorney before doing anything.
Thank you very much for sharing this information, this is a very good point; I never thought about it.
As always this is one attorney's personal opinion/strategy so please consult your own attorney before doing anything.
Thank you very much for sharing this information, this is a very good point; I never thought about it.
bluez25
07-15 03:52 PM
I got my PCC in San Francisco Indian Consulate last year assuming that I might get the appointment. but never happened until now. I am not sure that is still valid PCC. I might have to go to India and then apply for a new one from the local police station.
No comments:
Post a Comment