ilikekilo
09-18 05:42 PM
any recent EAD approvals? we applied on aug 11 and did FP's on sep 8th, i e filed...mine expires on oct 30th ..please advise..mine is at NSC
the processing dates show may1....and i am moving to a new emplyer on oct 13th and i dont want my new empllyer to get shocked saying my EAD expires on Oct 30th..any suggestions are apprecaited
the processing dates show may1....and i am moving to a new emplyer on oct 13th and i dont want my new empllyer to get shocked saying my EAD expires on Oct 30th..any suggestions are apprecaited
wallpaper short haircuts for round faces
vdlrao
08-06 02:21 PM
Its a massive hit even to some staffing comps here
It afftects staffing companies which ever has more than 50 employees, and 50% of them are not us citizens. Can some one confirm this please.
It afftects staffing companies which ever has more than 50 employees, and 50% of them are not us citizens. Can some one confirm this please.
bmoni
08-20 03:21 PM
@acecupid: Thanks for the response. For me it is Chicago consulate it will take 10-15 days.
which comes pretty close to my travel date. As you mentioned i do hope it will not be a problem.
Also today I talked to the Indian consulate in Chicago they told me I can travel without any problem. As long as the passport is valid even it is the last day of the validity I should be fine with the travel. There shouldn't be a problem with the immigration officers during travel based on that.
@kanakabyraju: Thanks for the advise. I might try that.
For a valid visa stamp you need a passport with six month validity. But I have not seen any where for traveling you need a six month validity. If you personally experienced any problem while traveling with less than six valid passport. please post your experience it will help me and others.
Thanks,
which comes pretty close to my travel date. As you mentioned i do hope it will not be a problem.
Also today I talked to the Indian consulate in Chicago they told me I can travel without any problem. As long as the passport is valid even it is the last day of the validity I should be fine with the travel. There shouldn't be a problem with the immigration officers during travel based on that.
@kanakabyraju: Thanks for the advise. I might try that.
For a valid visa stamp you need a passport with six month validity. But I have not seen any where for traveling you need a six month validity. If you personally experienced any problem while traveling with less than six valid passport. please post your experience it will help me and others.
Thanks,
2011 boys, Short
rajenk
02-08 12:49 AM
Advance Parole. You are not alone. :)
Thanks, I got it. I even looked up on USCIS e-file page. E-file is the way to go...:)
Thanks, I got it. I even looked up on USCIS e-file page. E-file is the way to go...:)
more...
bablata2007
11-27 03:18 PM
My 485 is pending with receipt date of Aug 9th, 2007 . It looks like my company is going to layoff a large # of employees. What is the best possible route to take should I lose my job now?
Pls help.
Thanks.
Pls help.
Thanks.
dish
09-25 09:56 AM
The Immigration Nationality Act does not say specifically that h4 time is added towards h1 time. It is the way laws interpreted by uscis that states h4 time counted towards H1. USCIS can change their interpretation by merely issuing a memo.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=454&page=3
see this thread.
Maybe it is a good idea to contact the Ombudsman about this issue.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=454&page=3
see this thread.
Maybe it is a good idea to contact the Ombudsman about this issue.
more...
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
2010 short hair styles for wavy
pd_recapturing
05-23 07:10 AM
In my case, I have my EB3 labor and I140 approved with PD as May 2004. I have already started a new PERM EB2 from same company in order to port PD. I have not reached to the stage where I can apply I140 (under EB2) to actually start porting PD. With the new rule of "21st May 2007", I am not sure how would my case be treated? Can somebody shed some light on this?
Can someone please answer this ?
Can someone please answer this ?
more...
PBECVictim
07-29 02:59 PM
In Texas Service Center, they are not processing I-140 cases filed in the month July end and August. They kept the side. God knows about their future. But they are processing 2008 April and may cases also.
Where is FIFO? They should follow FIFO. Lot of those cases were BEC labor applications. So BEC guys suffered 3 yrs in backlog ceter, no justice there. No justice in USCIS even, waiting more than 1 yr for I-140 processing.
It is not fair.
Where is FIFO? They should follow FIFO. Lot of those cases were BEC labor applications. So BEC guys suffered 3 yrs in backlog ceter, no justice there. No justice in USCIS even, waiting more than 1 yr for I-140 processing.
It is not fair.
hair short hair styles 2008
gc28262
07-31 02:14 PM
Thank you for your prompt response
1. Since company did not send me to USA after getting h1b visa 32 months back. Can he take legal action to pay liquidated charges? as mentioned below in the agreement.
I don't know the details about the contract. Just complain to DOL. Your "employer" will be so busy defending themselves, they won't have any time left to come after you.
Extract from Agreement: If the employee terminates the agreement prior to the minimum period of 18 months, the employee will pay company liquidated charges of 4000 USD.
Liquidated damages ? Not sure how they have incurred some damages because of you. Since they claim to be your employer , they are supposed to pay you the salary all these years. Have they paid you all these years ?
2.Can New Jersy laws applicable in India to send a legal notice to me?
I am not a lawyer or one knowledgeable in law. Discuss with a lawyer in India and see whether your employer can do anything to you in India depending on the contract you signed. As for US side, you have nothing to worry.
3. Since I have not travelled to USA on H1B, Can I be called an Employee of that company who processed my H1B.
4. Can I take any legal action against him as he did not send me to USA despite the fact that I renewed the Bank Guarantee twice.
As for US, complaint to DOL. DOL will do the needful without you spending a paisa. For India, discuss with an Indian lawyer.
Pls answer the above 3 questions.
1. Since company did not send me to USA after getting h1b visa 32 months back. Can he take legal action to pay liquidated charges? as mentioned below in the agreement.
I don't know the details about the contract. Just complain to DOL. Your "employer" will be so busy defending themselves, they won't have any time left to come after you.
Extract from Agreement: If the employee terminates the agreement prior to the minimum period of 18 months, the employee will pay company liquidated charges of 4000 USD.
Liquidated damages ? Not sure how they have incurred some damages because of you. Since they claim to be your employer , they are supposed to pay you the salary all these years. Have they paid you all these years ?
2.Can New Jersy laws applicable in India to send a legal notice to me?
I am not a lawyer or one knowledgeable in law. Discuss with a lawyer in India and see whether your employer can do anything to you in India depending on the contract you signed. As for US side, you have nothing to worry.
3. Since I have not travelled to USA on H1B, Can I be called an Employee of that company who processed my H1B.
4. Can I take any legal action against him as he did not send me to USA despite the fact that I renewed the Bank Guarantee twice.
As for US, complaint to DOL. DOL will do the needful without you spending a paisa. For India, discuss with an Indian lawyer.
Pls answer the above 3 questions.
more...
jonty_11
07-23 11:55 AM
CA is expensive...I am sure more than PA...but the decision is yours man...However, I do not think this is the right forum for such questions. If you have issues with GC retrogression then fire away.
hot Hairstyles for Thick Hair
jthomas
06-09 12:49 PM
When i went to Mumbai last december i got my H1B stamped. while coming to US i showed the POE my H1B stamped visa he asked me for Advanced parol document and i was Parolled.When i asked him i have a H1B stamped in my passport why do i need to be parolled. He answered AP has a higher preference than H1B.
the bottom line is " H1B stamping will not be considered for your entry". Its just a stamp for your satisfaction.
I am not going to stamp my H1B again. 18 months back when i came from Vancouver Canada the POE let me in by AP not by H1B visa. I asked him about my valid H1B and the POE told me you can enter using either one but we prefer AP.
If you are a local from mumbai then its okay to attend a interview and get stamped. They don't ask much in my interview. In my last interview they asked me in the picture you have a mouthstach and now you are clean shaven. So that is the level of questions asked at the interview. Its just 2-3 hours of work or maybe half a day if you wish to do it.
One more proble i went through at mumbai consulte, The dates were posted 1 week in advance and then a local person has to go and submit the document to the consulate. the FEDEX from US to India would be costing around 68 to 150 dollars and it needs to be reached within 1-2 days (i.e. 3 days before the interview). I got it done somehow.
J thomas
the bottom line is " H1B stamping will not be considered for your entry". Its just a stamp for your satisfaction.
I am not going to stamp my H1B again. 18 months back when i came from Vancouver Canada the POE let me in by AP not by H1B visa. I asked him about my valid H1B and the POE told me you can enter using either one but we prefer AP.
If you are a local from mumbai then its okay to attend a interview and get stamped. They don't ask much in my interview. In my last interview they asked me in the picture you have a mouthstach and now you are clean shaven. So that is the level of questions asked at the interview. Its just 2-3 hours of work or maybe half a day if you wish to do it.
One more proble i went through at mumbai consulte, The dates were posted 1 week in advance and then a local person has to go and submit the document to the consulate. the FEDEX from US to India would be costing around 68 to 150 dollars and it needs to be reached within 1-2 days (i.e. 3 days before the interview). I got it done somehow.
J thomas
more...
house long, thick, wavy, caucasian, 15-30 minutes, hairstyles, brown hair,
madhavig
04-04 05:37 PM
You and your spouse should go to the nearest IRS office with the new SSN and old ITIN letters. They can immediately make the updates in the system and you will receive the letter from IRS about invalidating the ITIN and replacing it with SSN.
Even if you do not have ITIN letter, you can still tell them but do take the SSN card and photo identity for any verification.
Even if you do not have ITIN letter, you can still tell them but do take the SSN card and photo identity for any verification.
tattoo wavy thick hair styles
arjunram
04-22 10:24 PM
so if someone mailed on jun 30th and the status online says received on july 26th does it mean that they are not processing these dates as yet? Im kinda confused!
more...
pictures celebrity hairstyles hair
Scythe
10-29 07:57 PM
Well you put tables in houses... so why not put them in websites?
(Going with the given assumption that websites inherit from houses somehow.)
(Going with the given assumption that websites inherit from houses somehow.)
dresses short hairstyles for wavy
kumar1305
02-10 01:07 PM
5 Years should be fine.
The best would be something like " As soon as some one paid a net $50000 as federal taxes over the years" can get the GC.
Or
As soon some one pays the federal tax for half a million dollars will be eligible for GC.
With a minimum of 5 years of stay in the US and on any employment visa.
All this employer sponsorship, labor, 140, 485 are BS.
This is how it is all over Europe.
The best would be something like " As soon as some one paid a net $50000 as federal taxes over the years" can get the GC.
Or
As soon some one pays the federal tax for half a million dollars will be eligible for GC.
With a minimum of 5 years of stay in the US and on any employment visa.
All this employer sponsorship, labor, 140, 485 are BS.
This is how it is all over Europe.
more...
makeup Hairstyle Wavy Thick Hair
gemini23
08-02 01:35 PM
Sanju,
This is indeed related to immigration issues, as many people have to get birth affidavits from india to usa and other places. I dont see whats wrong in using IV to discuss this courier issues.
Also, I dont know why would you link this with DC rally. I assume in good faith that people are going to show up at rally if they can, based on their circumstances.
Please do not make generic negative assumptions.
Peace.
People have started using IV forums to report any issue with customer service. Guys, grow-up, participate in IV activity rather than screwing the effort of few good people. I am sure that people who posted on this thread about DHL/UPS/FedEx are not going to show up at the DC rally. Why are you guys wasting the bandwidth and at the same time killing your time? Wish you all the luck in finding something better to do.
This is indeed related to immigration issues, as many people have to get birth affidavits from india to usa and other places. I dont see whats wrong in using IV to discuss this courier issues.
Also, I dont know why would you link this with DC rally. I assume in good faith that people are going to show up at rally if they can, based on their circumstances.
Please do not make generic negative assumptions.
Peace.
People have started using IV forums to report any issue with customer service. Guys, grow-up, participate in IV activity rather than screwing the effort of few good people. I am sure that people who posted on this thread about DHL/UPS/FedEx are not going to show up at the DC rally. Why are you guys wasting the bandwidth and at the same time killing your time? Wish you all the luck in finding something better to do.
girlfriend curly hair, wavy hair,
smarth
07-10 10:41 PM
EB3-I is still 'U'....any prediction for EB3-I in October'09 Visa bulletin?:(
hairstyles Wavy Hairstyles Long Hair View
nviren
10-26 04:05 PM
I did not see lot of approvals coming out from Nebraska this week.
Wondering why they are so silent?
Have they changed their focus?
Any ideas?
Wondering why they are so silent?
Have they changed their focus?
Any ideas?
aadimanav
11-02 12:31 AM
Thanks SatyaRaj and Paskal.
vikramy
11-19 07:00 PM
Today there was LUD on my 140 application which was approved 1 year back. What does this mean? I received my EAD and AP is approved.
Sorry to ask this question on this thread, but i think i don't have ability to create new thread?
Can some one help please?
My PD is Feb 2006 and I am EB3 India
Sorry to ask this question on this thread, but i think i don't have ability to create new thread?
Can some one help please?
My PD is Feb 2006 and I am EB3 India
No comments:
Post a Comment