pappu
03-06 11:51 AM
Dear members,
If you have received letters from USCIS asking for $5K for your FOIA request, Please fax a copy of that letter to Immigration Voice.
We want to collect those letters and proceed with some big effort on this issue. It is thus important that we have lots of such letters from members.
Please note the fax number
Fax : (202) 403-3853
or email the scanned copy to info at immigrationvoice.org
Time is short and we need letters in the next couple of days if possible.
If you have received letters from USCIS asking for $5K for your FOIA request, Please fax a copy of that letter to Immigration Voice.
We want to collect those letters and proceed with some big effort on this issue. It is thus important that we have lots of such letters from members.
Please note the fax number
Fax : (202) 403-3853
or email the scanned copy to info at immigrationvoice.org
Time is short and we need letters in the next couple of days if possible.
wallpaper Ayn Rand Wallpaper 1280x800 by
gcseeker28
07-27 04:24 PM
That was a huge sigh of relief. Thanks and I really appreciate your answers.
Hopefully, I'll get my EAD (PD is April 2007 on EB2) before they respond back with MTR response.
Hopefully, I'll get my EAD (PD is April 2007 on EB2) before they respond back with MTR response.
kisana
04-11 10:16 PM
Sorry i keep on asking same questions again and again. I could not find any answer for that. What should I fill in "date of application" for priviously applied I-765, it should be date from EAD when they approved it or should it be the the date on which they received my application.
Also what should I fill in the
"Please provide information concerning your eligibility status"
Please suggest.
Also what should I fill in the
"Please provide information concerning your eligibility status"
Please suggest.
2011 1280 x 800 Wallpaper
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
looivy
11-02 12:59 PM
If this is a possible solution, have your Mother-in-Law visit Canada temporarily for a few day and have her come back to US. I am just floating this idea for discussuion.
dan19
09-12 01:52 PM
Isn't it done before LC filing?
We need to start recruitment process. For this it requires job advertisements for 5 weeks in a row, complete the recruitment process.
We need to start recruitment process. For this it requires job advertisements for 5 weeks in a row, complete the recruitment process.
more...
Photoman
March 26th, 2004, 08:22 AM
I have just joined this forum and collected my D70 last night. Used for the first time tonight took about 200 photo's with my SB-80DX flash.
I had to use camera on A or S priority with flash set on Auto. Quite a backward step after TTL metering with the F100.
The only Nikon flashes which provide full interaction with the D70 are the SB-800 & SB-600. Only these provide auto zoom head function, ISO from camera and TTL metering.
Hope this helps.PM
SB-26 will be a problem. You cannot use TTL flash mode with any Nikon digital camera. It would be like going back to an old thyristor auto flash. Only the DX series flashes work with the digitals.
I had to use camera on A or S priority with flash set on Auto. Quite a backward step after TTL metering with the F100.
The only Nikon flashes which provide full interaction with the D70 are the SB-800 & SB-600. Only these provide auto zoom head function, ISO from camera and TTL metering.
Hope this helps.PM
SB-26 will be a problem. You cannot use TTL flash mode with any Nikon digital camera. It would be like going back to an old thyristor auto flash. Only the DX series flashes work with the digitals.
2010 wallpapers 1280 x 800.
gc4me
02-09 10:17 AM
You should not let this opportunity of 'Retaining your 1998 PD' go and need to act as quickly as possible. If you are from India and EB3 and if you have a new PD (from Y) of 2002+, it will take you 10+ yrs to get your GC. No kidding!!!
Do this fast:
01. try to find out a new company (if Y does not agree, generally if Y is a big corporation like MS, Verizon, Merrill Lynch , GE etc. will not agree for sure) who are willing to file a PERM LC for you for future employment.
02. Use your approved I-140 (from X) and retain your PD while filling PERM LC from the new company (company Z :-))
03. File I-140/485 together once you get your perm LC cleared (in 2/3 months including advertisement. filling etc.) and get you EAD/AP done by 60 days :-)). WOW. Rest of us can only dream about it!!
04. After you file 485, after 180 days, you are able to change your current company (Z) and take perm job in a reputable company (say A).
05. Sorry to say that you have to leave company Y and especially it is difficult if you make big bucks there.
I am new member to this forum. My friend referred me here.
I have a very unique case scenario and need help if anyone is aware of this.
Background :
I worked for company X which went bankrupt and was absorbed by company Y. 3 months after I started
working for Y I got I-140 approved from company X(not sure how but got it).I had filed for I-140 abt.
2 months before I joined Y(then still an employee of X) and had opted for CP and not AOS(had
the option of concurrent filing but did not use which i regret till date). Since the X case was of
no use now I filed a fresh LC from Y and am still waiting for notification from BPC for recruitment(TR case).
I am planning to use the PD from earlier approved I-140 which is sept. 1999 when my LC gets approved.
Issue :
Last week I received a mail from NVC which was forwarded to me by the previous employers attorney.
The letter's main content says
"THIS LETTER SHALL SERVE AS YOUR NOTIFICATION THAT A VISA NUMBER IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.
FAILURE TO PURSUE YOUR VISA APPLICATION BY COMPLYING WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW WILL COMMENCE
PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE YOUR IMMIGRANT VISA REGISTRATION ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER".
It mentions "Section 203(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the Secretary of State
to terminate the registration of any alien who fails to apply for an immigrant visa within one year
following notification of the availability of a visa number".
Letter is Dated Dec. 3 2006.
Question :
I want to know if this will in anyway prevent me from using my old case PD with my current case?
My interpretation of this is that only the registration with NVC gets cancelled but the
underlying LC and I-140 approved are not affected and I can still use the old PD on my
current case. Pls. help.
Do this fast:
01. try to find out a new company (if Y does not agree, generally if Y is a big corporation like MS, Verizon, Merrill Lynch , GE etc. will not agree for sure) who are willing to file a PERM LC for you for future employment.
02. Use your approved I-140 (from X) and retain your PD while filling PERM LC from the new company (company Z :-))
03. File I-140/485 together once you get your perm LC cleared (in 2/3 months including advertisement. filling etc.) and get you EAD/AP done by 60 days :-)). WOW. Rest of us can only dream about it!!
04. After you file 485, after 180 days, you are able to change your current company (Z) and take perm job in a reputable company (say A).
05. Sorry to say that you have to leave company Y and especially it is difficult if you make big bucks there.
I am new member to this forum. My friend referred me here.
I have a very unique case scenario and need help if anyone is aware of this.
Background :
I worked for company X which went bankrupt and was absorbed by company Y. 3 months after I started
working for Y I got I-140 approved from company X(not sure how but got it).I had filed for I-140 abt.
2 months before I joined Y(then still an employee of X) and had opted for CP and not AOS(had
the option of concurrent filing but did not use which i regret till date). Since the X case was of
no use now I filed a fresh LC from Y and am still waiting for notification from BPC for recruitment(TR case).
I am planning to use the PD from earlier approved I-140 which is sept. 1999 when my LC gets approved.
Issue :
Last week I received a mail from NVC which was forwarded to me by the previous employers attorney.
The letter's main content says
"THIS LETTER SHALL SERVE AS YOUR NOTIFICATION THAT A VISA NUMBER IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.
FAILURE TO PURSUE YOUR VISA APPLICATION BY COMPLYING WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW WILL COMMENCE
PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE YOUR IMMIGRANT VISA REGISTRATION ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER".
It mentions "Section 203(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the Secretary of State
to terminate the registration of any alien who fails to apply for an immigrant visa within one year
following notification of the availability of a visa number".
Letter is Dated Dec. 3 2006.
Question :
I want to know if this will in anyway prevent me from using my old case PD with my current case?
My interpretation of this is that only the registration with NVC gets cancelled but the
underlying LC and I-140 approved are not affected and I can still use the old PD on my
current case. Pls. help.
more...
johny120
08-23 11:32 AM
No, I do not have a EAD or AP. I did not apply for them. I am planning to keep extending my H1 and not get into the hassle of EAD and AP every year.
hair Wallpaper 1280 X 800 Red
hanu0913
10-08 02:05 PM
If the GC is approved prior to your marriage and if your spouse is here, you are golden. You simply apply for I-485 (family based). If your spouse is not in USand you have GC, you will need to file for follow to join visa and it will take some time (I dunno how many years).
i think you didn't get me,here is my question , if a person got married after applying i-485 and not able include his wife due to PD current date issue before his GC got approved, is there any way to get out from this situation , please let me know you one
i think you didn't get me,here is my question , if a person got married after applying i-485 and not able include his wife due to PD current date issue before his GC got approved, is there any way to get out from this situation , please let me know you one
more...
joshraj
10-06 09:37 AM
Anyone with July 27 File Date, Please update receipt recd or not recd
hot 1280x800 wallpaper.jpg (1.38
reddymjm
05-16 11:01 AM
I called, the clerk took the message and said will convery.
more...
house 10372 800 1280x800
dipu76
06-01 06:16 PM
It is illegal.
It will be great if someone can send me any reference to confirm that it is illegal..
It will be great if someone can send me any reference to confirm that it is illegal..
tattoo SaveEarth Wallpaper 1280x800
BimmerFAn
06-23 12:58 PM
Yeah I saw on the Visa Bulletin that EB3 is really backed up. Kind of upsetting because I am sure that not too many people from my country are working in my field.
Regardless, my position is that of a Financial Services Auditor. The position requirements state that a Master's degree is preferred but a Bachelor's is acceptable if one meets the credit hour requirements to sit for the CPA exam (150 hours).
I heard that EB2 category placement depends on the position requirements not on my actual degree, which is a BS in Accounting and Finance (Double Major, exceeding 150 credit hours). Using that information is there any way that I could be placed in EB2? I got the job with a lesser degree because I was able to demonstrate exceptional ability.
As far as the bonus thing goes, I was trying to address the "renumeration" requirement for EB2. My company is one of the top in the field globally. I reason that if one receives bonuses for being one of the top performers in that company then it should be "exceptional ability."
Lastly I would meet the Professional licensing - CPA/CFA - and professional organization membership - AICPA and other State orgs.
I would speak to my company attorney about this, but I want to get the facts straight. I can see that to save myself a headache I might as well get married to a US citizen.
Regardless, my position is that of a Financial Services Auditor. The position requirements state that a Master's degree is preferred but a Bachelor's is acceptable if one meets the credit hour requirements to sit for the CPA exam (150 hours).
I heard that EB2 category placement depends on the position requirements not on my actual degree, which is a BS in Accounting and Finance (Double Major, exceeding 150 credit hours). Using that information is there any way that I could be placed in EB2? I got the job with a lesser degree because I was able to demonstrate exceptional ability.
As far as the bonus thing goes, I was trying to address the "renumeration" requirement for EB2. My company is one of the top in the field globally. I reason that if one receives bonuses for being one of the top performers in that company then it should be "exceptional ability."
Lastly I would meet the Professional licensing - CPA/CFA - and professional organization membership - AICPA and other State orgs.
I would speak to my company attorney about this, but I want to get the facts straight. I can see that to save myself a headache I might as well get married to a US citizen.
more...
pictures meditation-play-wallpaper-
eilsoe
10-03 01:25 PM
Allright....
SPAM*MATH.ACOS(POW(INFINITY,INFINITY))/2*3+SIN(INFINITY+1)
::::eerie laughing is heard briefly, then a loud choking sound::::
::::mistyfying silence covers the land::::
SPAM*MATH.ACOS(POW(INFINITY,INFINITY))/2*3+SIN(INFINITY+1)
::::eerie laughing is heard briefly, then a loud choking sound::::
::::mistyfying silence covers the land::::
dresses Spartans Softball 1280x800
GCWarrior
04-16 02:38 PM
I hope so too. I donot know the difference between MTR or Appeal and heard Appeal gives more rights than MTR. Any ideas on which route to take?
Thanks
Thanks
more...
makeup green - wallpaper - 1280 x 800
petersebastian
04-01 11:31 PM
you dont have to marry. just remain as illegal and they will GC sooner.
Hmm really? I thought that is not possible anymore. Can you give me the details or refer me to a website that has them? Thank you!
Hmm really? I thought that is not possible anymore. Can you give me the details or refer me to a website that has them? Thank you!
girlfriend wide-wallpaper-1280x800-053
sunflowershower
12-03 12:50 PM
Hi,
I'm currently under AOS, I had H4 visa under my father (H1B visa) but since I just recently turned 22 my H4 visa expired. My family and I apply for Green Card (with I485 hand in) in July 2007. The problem is, I just recently got accepted in to UK Graduate school (lse) and I would love to go. It's an one-year program, but I think I would need to spend 1 and half year in UK. Is there any way that would allow me to just study aboard for 1.5-2 years in UK without jeopardizing my I485? or worse my parents' I485? What application/document should I file? :confused:
PS. I'm not sure if this information is any helpful but I am also a master's student in US. But my advisor said I can take one year off to UK and finish my US masters when I get back. Also, I'm a canadian citizen
Would really appreciate any help,
I asked my family immigration lawyer but she is completely clueless as to what I need to do.
I'm currently under AOS, I had H4 visa under my father (H1B visa) but since I just recently turned 22 my H4 visa expired. My family and I apply for Green Card (with I485 hand in) in July 2007. The problem is, I just recently got accepted in to UK Graduate school (lse) and I would love to go. It's an one-year program, but I think I would need to spend 1 and half year in UK. Is there any way that would allow me to just study aboard for 1.5-2 years in UK without jeopardizing my I485? or worse my parents' I485? What application/document should I file? :confused:
PS. I'm not sure if this information is any helpful but I am also a master's student in US. But my advisor said I can take one year off to UK and finish my US masters when I get back. Also, I'm a canadian citizen
Would really appreciate any help,
I asked my family immigration lawyer but she is completely clueless as to what I need to do.
hairstyles SaveWater Wallpaper 1280x800
fromnaija
12-09 04:09 PM
According to my attorney, you can re-apply for AP from outside of the U.S. and have it delivered to a local consulate.
I will not argue with what your lawyer tells you.
However, because Form I-131 is used for multiple purposes, some of the instructions are applicable to one condition and not to the other. So read the instruction again and you will see that some of the references to sending the document to overseas consulate refers to when it's used as a Reentry Permit, Refuge Travel Document, or as Advanced Parole for humanitarian reasons. For someone who applied for AOS, sorry no such luck.
I will not argue with what your lawyer tells you.
However, because Form I-131 is used for multiple purposes, some of the instructions are applicable to one condition and not to the other. So read the instruction again and you will see that some of the references to sending the document to overseas consulate refers to when it's used as a Reentry Permit, Refuge Travel Document, or as Advanced Parole for humanitarian reasons. For someone who applied for AOS, sorry no such luck.
anilkumar0902
04-10 01:33 PM
I e-Filed my EAD renewal application on 03/16, sent the docs to Nebraska and it was approved on 04/07. I was not asked to get Fingerprinting for the same.
Good luck.
Cheers
Good luck.
Cheers
sac-r-ten
06-02 11:26 AM
All the guys waiting in Canada, you can ask your passport and all other papers back from the Consulate and return to India and try stamping there.
I have heard cases where people in india went for stamping and since they were put on Admin processing, took their passports and returned back on AP. Well, they had AP to fall back. But i think if you are too much worried staying in Canada, better to ask the consultate to return back all papers and passport and go back to homeland and try stamping there. Atleast you will be less worries in homeland and have a good time with family back there.
Just my 2 cents.
Good luck my friends.
I have heard cases where people in india went for stamping and since they were put on Admin processing, took their passports and returned back on AP. Well, they had AP to fall back. But i think if you are too much worried staying in Canada, better to ask the consultate to return back all papers and passport and go back to homeland and try stamping there. Atleast you will be less worries in homeland and have a good time with family back there.
Just my 2 cents.
Good luck my friends.
No comments:
Post a Comment