Queen Josephine
May 23rd, 2005, 10:34 AM
I like them all Gary, but agree with Chris about the cloning out that bright white rock , or whatever it is, in the first one. Also, unless you've been there before, it's difficult to capture the enormity of those rocks. The footpath catches my eye in the second photo which gives some perspective on where you are positioned. It looks like you are a quite a bit above and working your way down to the path. The 3rd pic looks like a crop? of the upper-center of the 2nd pic? And lastly, can I apply for a job where you work so I can travel too!
wallpaper Dollar Sign ShowCart. No show
wa_Saiprasad
01-02 01:08 PM
I have sent you a private message.
tcsonly
07-21 04:07 PM
My PD is June 04 and the online status for my LC shows CERTIFIED since last week. Attorneys say they need DOL to send them the approved LC ... some document, which would be needed to file I-140 and I-485. Any idea how much time it takes for DOL to send the above said document back to the applicant or representative?
In that case, have your paper work ready such as medical tests, birth certs & related.
-C.
In that case, have your paper work ready such as medical tests, birth certs & related.
-C.
2011 gold dollar sign bling.
SandeR2
03-26 04:10 AM
ow hell this is a big list XD may the best man win, there are allot of cool styles in there
more...
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
sorcerer666
03-31 04:17 PM
Have you ever participated any of the IV's campaign on various issues. Have you ever volunteered your time or donated money.
If no, you deserve this and rot in hell. There is no solution and you people are running to IV only when disastor strikes. But its too late.
If you cannot get the original contract nothing can be done...
So by your logic, if he had contributed to IV his visa would've been issued no questions asked?? And he won't deserve help coz he didnt contribute?? Man I feel sorry for your selfish attitude!!
If no, you deserve this and rot in hell. There is no solution and you people are running to IV only when disastor strikes. But its too late.
If you cannot get the original contract nothing can be done...
So by your logic, if he had contributed to IV his visa would've been issued no questions asked?? And he won't deserve help coz he didnt contribute?? Man I feel sorry for your selfish attitude!!
more...
Desertfox
04-06 04:39 AM
I found this in another website:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=685c8d8b3b760210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Since the beginning of this fiscal year (October 2008), USCIS has adjudicated over 75,000 employer petitions, reducing the pending caseload of petitions to under 55,000.USCIS� goal is to have adjudicated all the older employer petitions, and to be processing newer petitions within 4 months, by the end of September 2009"
Good find! I have never seen such a thorough explanation about the EB process backlog/delay from USCIS. Something has definitely changed after our ex governor Janet Napolitano became the DHS secretary.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=685c8d8b3b760210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Since the beginning of this fiscal year (October 2008), USCIS has adjudicated over 75,000 employer petitions, reducing the pending caseload of petitions to under 55,000.USCIS� goal is to have adjudicated all the older employer petitions, and to be processing newer petitions within 4 months, by the end of September 2009"
Good find! I have never seen such a thorough explanation about the EB process backlog/delay from USCIS. Something has definitely changed after our ex governor Janet Napolitano became the DHS secretary.
2010 HIP HOP BLING DOLLAR SIGN
eb3_nepa
04-13 09:16 AM
Hello,
There was a lot of talk about the time between the passing of the CIR and it's implementation. I was wondering exactly how much time would it take from the time the bill was passed (assuming it had our provisions) and it actually becoming a law. Some say 3 months some say 6 months. What is the real number?
There was a lot of talk about the time between the passing of the CIR and it's implementation. I was wondering exactly how much time would it take from the time the bill was passed (assuming it had our provisions) and it actually becoming a law. Some say 3 months some say 6 months. What is the real number?
more...
psam
12-16 10:58 AM
Thanks psam. Did they say what was the issue and how many days did it take to get the card after the issue was found out?
I took usual 20/25 days. Dont exactly remember.
I took usual 20/25 days. Dont exactly remember.
hair Iced dollar sign on black.
ajcates
11-24 11:28 AM
I want the kawoosh one to win mainly because of the cool name.
more...
samshah
07-14 09:34 PM
We are in Houston and are interested to join.
hot Dollar Sign Hip Hop Bling
reachinus
10-31 12:40 PM
I am not sure what you want to say over here...
I told you are wrong in saying that they may issue the I-94 till the expiry of the Visa Stamp.
Well. In non-immigrant visa admissions at POE, ICE officers has their own "power" in determining the period of stay. Even if anyone has 10 year visa stamp, they can admit only for 10 days if they want; no one can argue/challange it at POE. Further truth is; even they can deny admission to GC holder if they want or if they found something fishy. Nothing is guarentee at POE as well as in consulate for getting non-immigrant visa. So, the departure date in latest I-94 is the important date to comply with (to leave US or extend on time).
I told you are wrong in saying that they may issue the I-94 till the expiry of the Visa Stamp.
Well. In non-immigrant visa admissions at POE, ICE officers has their own "power" in determining the period of stay. Even if anyone has 10 year visa stamp, they can admit only for 10 days if they want; no one can argue/challange it at POE. Further truth is; even they can deny admission to GC holder if they want or if they found something fishy. Nothing is guarentee at POE as well as in consulate for getting non-immigrant visa. So, the departure date in latest I-94 is the important date to comply with (to leave US or extend on time).
more...
house 3-Ring Key Chain Heart
MahaBharatGC
10-13 01:39 PM
Well you are correct I am trying to draw attention because as a saying "you will only know the pain when you walk the line". My company attorneys delayed the filings. I am not blaming anyone but myself. However, the fact of the matter is to find out a way to address this issue which is going to help everyone else. I do not knonw how long my particular case might take but since I am in the process I understood the issue.
First, when you apply in advance, yeah the possibility of approval before existing application expiration is very high. But you will end up loosing the EAD period from the date of approval to the date of last expiration. This is a loss for us.
Second, a renewal should only take less time as it takes for Drivers license. It is not AP where they have to validate your last entry etc etc.
EAD renewal adjudication should be separate from rest of all application processing and should shrink the timline.
Imagine my case. My wife was searching for jobs since her first EAD and now she got one but lack of EAD is going to cause her to loose it.....
First, when you apply in advance, yeah the possibility of approval before existing application expiration is very high. But you will end up loosing the EAD period from the date of approval to the date of last expiration. This is a loss for us.
Second, a renewal should only take less time as it takes for Drivers license. It is not AP where they have to validate your last entry etc etc.
EAD renewal adjudication should be separate from rest of all application processing and should shrink the timline.
Imagine my case. My wife was searching for jobs since her first EAD and now she got one but lack of EAD is going to cause her to loose it.....
tattoo Green Glitter Triple DOLLAR
NKR
05-01 11:54 AM
Consult an attorney and see if you can re-open your old case or port that date onto a new case. You don�t want to start your GC process all over again. It is a pain for someone from retrogressed country.
more...
pictures Gold Dollar Sign Necklace
InTheMoment
07-19 10:47 PM
srarao,
Why would you get a RFE when you have done the skin test AND a subsequent chest x-ray ?
The only case that I read where a person got an RFE was when he had done the skin which was positive and inspite of the chest x-ray being negative.
The RFE he got was because the doctor unneccesarily made a note on the I-693 that a medication course is recommended.
Hi
Any guys with RFE on this
Why would you get a RFE when you have done the skin test AND a subsequent chest x-ray ?
The only case that I read where a person got an RFE was when he had done the skin which was positive and inspite of the chest x-ray being negative.
The RFE he got was because the doctor unneccesarily made a note on the I-693 that a medication course is recommended.
Hi
Any guys with RFE on this
dresses Bling Bling Dollar Symbol
gcdreamer05
08-05 05:11 PM
Guys n Girls,
I would like to listen to your views or experience in this matter. As we know, the employer is now required to pay for all fees associated with filing a labor certification (first step in the GC application). Is it legit for the employer to engage the employee in a contract that requires the employee to reimburse all immigration related fees (including the labor cert fee) to the employer if the employee quits the company when the GC petition is pending?
I guess DOL wants the employer to pay for the labor cert fee. Is it ok for the employer to get it back, say a year later, when the employee quits the company, which in sense would mean that the employee ended up paying for the labor cert.
Comments please.
Thanks!
that is totally illegal and if it happens and if someone complains to DOL then the employer will be in "Lake Soup"
I would like to listen to your views or experience in this matter. As we know, the employer is now required to pay for all fees associated with filing a labor certification (first step in the GC application). Is it legit for the employer to engage the employee in a contract that requires the employee to reimburse all immigration related fees (including the labor cert fee) to the employer if the employee quits the company when the GC petition is pending?
I guess DOL wants the employer to pay for the labor cert fee. Is it ok for the employer to get it back, say a year later, when the employee quits the company, which in sense would mean that the employee ended up paying for the labor cert.
Comments please.
Thanks!
that is totally illegal and if it happens and if someone complains to DOL then the employer will be in "Lake Soup"
more...
makeup with gold dollar sign on a
pappu
08-22 04:12 PM
Paskal:
Thanks for your kind reply. I am new to Buffalo, NY. Just moved from California. I dont know much ppl here. There is lots of indian community here but dont know why none is responding. If I can find one guy also I can book a car and drive there for rally.
Please send emails to your Univ. association email list. get in touch with your town's associations.
Thanks for your kind reply. I am new to Buffalo, NY. Just moved from California. I dont know much ppl here. There is lots of indian community here but dont know why none is responding. If I can find one guy also I can book a car and drive there for rally.
Please send emails to your Univ. association email list. get in touch with your town's associations.
girlfriend Dollar Sign Gold Tooth Cap
jungalee43
06-29 05:51 PM
Hey guys. Please help me. for the first time I am posting a question.
All my details are in this thread.
"http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/ac21-portability-after-180-days-485-filing/11341-did-anyone-actually-use-ac21-11.html#post420955"
Now after AC21 - Two RFEs on that - gap in EAD I have received a notice for initial interview. It basically says: -
Who should come with you?
if the petition is based on your marriage, your petitioner spouse.
if the petition is based on parental relationship, your sponsoring parents or child.
What should you bring with you.
All EADs, Travel documents, all I-94s etc.
Originals and copies of All the supporting documentation submitted with the application.
Birth certificates.
Letter from current employer and last IT returns.
We have not received any notice for my wife. There is no LUD on any case for last one month. And the case is at national benefits Center, interview in Atlanta. I am just confused. What does this mean? What is meant by all supporting documentation submitted with the application?
I am completely confused, worried and getting tense. Can anyone throw some light on this please????????????????
__________________________________________________ ________________
Donation to IV $1000+ so far.
All my details are in this thread.
"http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/ac21-portability-after-180-days-485-filing/11341-did-anyone-actually-use-ac21-11.html#post420955"
Now after AC21 - Two RFEs on that - gap in EAD I have received a notice for initial interview. It basically says: -
Who should come with you?
if the petition is based on your marriage, your petitioner spouse.
if the petition is based on parental relationship, your sponsoring parents or child.
What should you bring with you.
All EADs, Travel documents, all I-94s etc.
Originals and copies of All the supporting documentation submitted with the application.
Birth certificates.
Letter from current employer and last IT returns.
We have not received any notice for my wife. There is no LUD on any case for last one month. And the case is at national benefits Center, interview in Atlanta. I am just confused. What does this mean? What is meant by all supporting documentation submitted with the application?
I am completely confused, worried and getting tense. Can anyone throw some light on this please????????????????
__________________________________________________ ________________
Donation to IV $1000+ so far.
hairstyles Dollar Bling Necklace
shortchanged
08-03 06:43 PM
From my experience None of these issues matter.
I had I 140 approved in 02/06, no A# on the approval notice.But before approval, I had an RFE on this I-140, with an A#, on that notice, the same A# I had used for I-485 application form.But when I got the I-797 NOA for this AOS, it had a different A#,(July2 '07filer).
When I did not get reciept even by August 16'07, I filed a 2nd I-485, eventhough many people including Ms.Murthy advised againt it.I just did not want to miss out the window of opportunity of July Fiasco.
So I have 2 485s pending,I did finger printing for the July2 filing, never got FP notice for the second filing.My wife and son did FP for both I-485s.
I too was worried about these things, and was expecting RFEs on all these and medicals etc.
But on 8/1/08, I have got CRIS email with 3 messages for Card Production Ordered for me ,my wife and son. I still do not know what shall I do with the 2nd 485.Also I have appointment for FP for efiled EADs on 8/5/08, which I may not go at all, if I get the snail mail tomorrow.
As usual there is no logic, pattern, predictability, rhyme or reason with USCIS business.I am just relieved for now that most of my major worries are on pause for now.
I had I 140 approved in 02/06, no A# on the approval notice.But before approval, I had an RFE on this I-140, with an A#, on that notice, the same A# I had used for I-485 application form.But when I got the I-797 NOA for this AOS, it had a different A#,(July2 '07filer).
When I did not get reciept even by August 16'07, I filed a 2nd I-485, eventhough many people including Ms.Murthy advised againt it.I just did not want to miss out the window of opportunity of July Fiasco.
So I have 2 485s pending,I did finger printing for the July2 filing, never got FP notice for the second filing.My wife and son did FP for both I-485s.
I too was worried about these things, and was expecting RFEs on all these and medicals etc.
But on 8/1/08, I have got CRIS email with 3 messages for Card Production Ordered for me ,my wife and son. I still do not know what shall I do with the 2nd 485.Also I have appointment for FP for efiled EADs on 8/5/08, which I may not go at all, if I get the snail mail tomorrow.
As usual there is no logic, pattern, predictability, rhyme or reason with USCIS business.I am just relieved for now that most of my major worries are on pause for now.
royus77
07-17 10:29 PM
Hi,
My I-140 approved in TSC( premium processing)
My Attorney sent my I-485 on July 2 to TSC
my labor approved from Wisconsin
but I read somewhere all applications needs to go to NSC , is it true?
I greatly appreciate your help
You are fine. I 485 should go where I 140 was approved.USCIS will internally transfer the applications until Aug 30 if they were sent to wrong processng center( Check the accuracy of date)
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrele...ling062107.pdf
My I-140 approved in TSC( premium processing)
My Attorney sent my I-485 on July 2 to TSC
my labor approved from Wisconsin
but I read somewhere all applications needs to go to NSC , is it true?
I greatly appreciate your help
You are fine. I 485 should go where I 140 was approved.USCIS will internally transfer the applications until Aug 30 if they were sent to wrong processng center( Check the accuracy of date)
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrele...ling062107.pdf
joydiptac
08-06 11:58 PM
Article is excellent. Thanks for sharing.
A divorce will not benefit anyone. Think about all the time you spent with each other as an investment. A job, and a little independence should not change your attitude. Think of the kids futures what they have to go thru. Its a total loose loose.
If you absolutely have to go thru with the divorce. Find a US citizen or maybe a GC holder who will be ready to marry you right after the divorce. Then you don't have to go out of the country. Or else reason with your husband to hold off on the divorce till GC.
A divorce will not benefit anyone. Think about all the time you spent with each other as an investment. A job, and a little independence should not change your attitude. Think of the kids futures what they have to go thru. Its a total loose loose.
If you absolutely have to go thru with the divorce. Find a US citizen or maybe a GC holder who will be ready to marry you right after the divorce. Then you don't have to go out of the country. Or else reason with your husband to hold off on the divorce till GC.
No comments:
Post a Comment