dealsnet
08-04 03:28 PM
I think the abused spouse cause is for the people getting GC with family based catagory. The temporary GC holder after marriage can do this with the help of the lawyer. The spouse abuse and all kind od stuff, to get GC if the husband/wife is not supportive. I know a person got that way after he is abused by his wife and got separated after she bring him from India.
For employment based GC, she yet to file I-485, I don't think she can file forcefully without the help of her husband. Employment based GC for the dependants is a permanent one, not like family based upon marriage.
Talk with a lawyer to find out the options.
Best way is to reconcile with the husband.
She/her friends can discuss this with her husband. If he supports apply for 485 and wait till the approval of that . She can file divorce after that.
If her husband is not supportive and doesnt want to add her for 485 then there is a special category (I dont remember the exact thing)/something like under certain circumstances ( which is like you are Abandoned by husband without no fault of your own and if you go back your hubbys family is going to harass you ...) This u need to check with a lawyer
Rajesh
For employment based GC, she yet to file I-485, I don't think she can file forcefully without the help of her husband. Employment based GC for the dependants is a permanent one, not like family based upon marriage.
Talk with a lawyer to find out the options.
Best way is to reconcile with the husband.
She/her friends can discuss this with her husband. If he supports apply for 485 and wait till the approval of that . She can file divorce after that.
If her husband is not supportive and doesnt want to add her for 485 then there is a special category (I dont remember the exact thing)/something like under certain circumstances ( which is like you are Abandoned by husband without no fault of your own and if you go back your hubbys family is going to harass you ...) This u need to check with a lawyer
Rajesh
wallpaper Know About Prom Dresses: If
rajenk
08-14 05:18 PM
Thank you all.
Today I called USCIS and the CSR (Customer Service Representative) said, to receipt applications USCIS might take 90 days. And he said I am lucky to get my receipts!!! (I filed on July 2nd!) My wife's receipts will be sent once they enter her application and validate it. He cannot track my wife's application status based on my receipt number. It looks like USCIS needs good DBAs to design and normalize their tables and Data base!!
I'll wait, and will check with my lawyer to see if they can verify with the cashed check.
Thanks
Raj
Today I called USCIS and the CSR (Customer Service Representative) said, to receipt applications USCIS might take 90 days. And he said I am lucky to get my receipts!!! (I filed on July 2nd!) My wife's receipts will be sent once they enter her application and validate it. He cannot track my wife's application status based on my receipt number. It looks like USCIS needs good DBAs to design and normalize their tables and Data base!!
I'll wait, and will check with my lawyer to see if they can verify with the cashed check.
Thanks
Raj
japs19
07-17 07:54 PM
I have a unique situation and I would really appreciate if someone can answer.
My LC and 140 was approved (March 2006) for Company A when I was working there on H1. After retrogration I changed jobs (November 2006) and went to work for Company B. My lawyer said we can apply for AOS using the approved 140 from company A. I did send the application which reached there on July 2nd. Now, do I have to go and work for Company A (which actually is not an option any more)? Or I can keep working for Company B and if 180 days are passed since the filing/receipt date I will be safe to obtain the GC? Company B is ready to start a new process for GC but if I can use the previously approved 140 and get AOS/GC approved, I really would like to do that.
Please help...:confused:
My LC and 140 was approved (March 2006) for Company A when I was working there on H1. After retrogration I changed jobs (November 2006) and went to work for Company B. My lawyer said we can apply for AOS using the approved 140 from company A. I did send the application which reached there on July 2nd. Now, do I have to go and work for Company A (which actually is not an option any more)? Or I can keep working for Company B and if 180 days are passed since the filing/receipt date I will be safe to obtain the GC? Company B is ready to start a new process for GC but if I can use the previously approved 140 and get AOS/GC approved, I really would like to do that.
Please help...:confused:
2011 US$142.90. Halter Neckline
interested
01-18 01:34 PM
Humanitarian Parole was specially created for cases like this. You can apply at the US Embassy. Your wife can apply for Humanitarian parole at the same time and it must be decided by the staff at the Embassy. Of course, you can also apply in the US if at the Embassy doesn't work but I hope that you don't have to do this. Contact the office of the Ombudsman at USCIS in your city. They can help.
Hi, I'm in a desperate situation.I am an asylee and have filed for my LPR.My asylee relative petition has been approved for my wife.
My problem is: a have a newborn baby who resides with my wife outside US and the US Embassy did not issue him any kind of visa,since my wife went for the interview after the petition was approved.She is all set and done,but my baby got born after I've been granted asylum and couldn't file the asylee relative petition for him.The law says that babies born after the asylum decision are not eligible for derivative asylum.I read that Humanitarian Parole would be a solution for these cases,but the officer at the embassy claimed that I should file a relative petition for him ,or file for humanitarian parole here in the US.
My question is can my wife file for Humanitarian Parole at the US embassy,or is there any other way
I read that US Embassies abroad are authorized to issue humanitarian paroles.I think this is the mos inhuman decision I ever heard of and it's about my baby.
I would really appreciate any help
(This is what I found on the internet)
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR NSC CONFERENCE CALL
REFUGEE/ASYLEE ISSUES
FEB. 28 2008
5) I-730 CASE or HUMANITARIAN PAROLE? What can be done for the
beneficiary spouse of an I-730 Asylee Relative petition if she gets
pregnant and has a child (from the petitioner, of course) after the
petitioner was granted asylum �therefore this new child is not considered
a derivative- but before she completes the Visa 92 process at the US
Embassy. Does the US Embassy have the authority to parole the
newborn child for him to join the rest of the family in the US?
Answer: If the child was in utero at the time of the asylum grant the
regulations provide benefit to that child as a derivative under 208.21(b). If
the child was not in utero and the relationship with the child was after the
asylum grant, then a I-730 petition can not be filed on behalf of this child.
The U.S. Embassy does have the authority to grant a humanitarian parole
and that would need to be addressed with the U.S. Embassy.
Hi, I'm in a desperate situation.I am an asylee and have filed for my LPR.My asylee relative petition has been approved for my wife.
My problem is: a have a newborn baby who resides with my wife outside US and the US Embassy did not issue him any kind of visa,since my wife went for the interview after the petition was approved.She is all set and done,but my baby got born after I've been granted asylum and couldn't file the asylee relative petition for him.The law says that babies born after the asylum decision are not eligible for derivative asylum.I read that Humanitarian Parole would be a solution for these cases,but the officer at the embassy claimed that I should file a relative petition for him ,or file for humanitarian parole here in the US.
My question is can my wife file for Humanitarian Parole at the US embassy,or is there any other way
I read that US Embassies abroad are authorized to issue humanitarian paroles.I think this is the mos inhuman decision I ever heard of and it's about my baby.
I would really appreciate any help
(This is what I found on the internet)
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR NSC CONFERENCE CALL
REFUGEE/ASYLEE ISSUES
FEB. 28 2008
5) I-730 CASE or HUMANITARIAN PAROLE? What can be done for the
beneficiary spouse of an I-730 Asylee Relative petition if she gets
pregnant and has a child (from the petitioner, of course) after the
petitioner was granted asylum �therefore this new child is not considered
a derivative- but before she completes the Visa 92 process at the US
Embassy. Does the US Embassy have the authority to parole the
newborn child for him to join the rest of the family in the US?
Answer: If the child was in utero at the time of the asylum grant the
regulations provide benefit to that child as a derivative under 208.21(b). If
the child was not in utero and the relationship with the child was after the
asylum grant, then a I-730 petition can not be filed on behalf of this child.
The U.S. Embassy does have the authority to grant a humanitarian parole
and that would need to be addressed with the U.S. Embassy.
more...
hsm2007
09-20 08:36 PM
Someone please help...I have a limited time to respond to this and would be great to hear from someone who received similar RFE and responded.
VisaExpert
08-18 04:53 PM
The above blog doesn't have up to date information. I had my visa appointment last month and it went very smooth. I felt confident too not only about the interview but also about the surroundings......thanks to the blog below.
H1B Visa Stamping Tijuana, Mx (http://www.tijuanah1b.blogspot.com)
H1B Visa Stamping Tijuana, Mx (http://www.tijuanah1b.blogspot.com)
more...
sandy_anand
01-24 10:06 AM
Last year the annual cap was 149200, so EB1's share by 28.8% rule is 42963
EB1 as you say received 41026.
Spillover from EB1 was 42964 - 41026 = 1944 ~ 2K.
This year we are back to the regular cap so the spillover from EB1 last year was on account of FB Spillover being added.
Thanks! I stand corrected.
EB1 as you say received 41026.
Spillover from EB1 was 42964 - 41026 = 1944 ~ 2K.
This year we are back to the regular cap so the spillover from EB1 last year was on account of FB Spillover being added.
Thanks! I stand corrected.
2010 Designer Prom Dresses 2011
lecter
January 5th, 2005, 07:54 AM
dude, that's a cool one. Is that the original colour?
It's certainly stark. I think a little less filling would make it more effective yet again..
Cheers
Rob
It's certainly stark. I think a little less filling would make it more effective yet again..
Cheers
Rob
more...
nozerd
01-17 09:35 AM
Go ahead and apply for a birth certificate from your nearest US Embassy/Consulate.
You will need one anyway when you do file I 485 or CP so might as well keep it ready now.
You will need one anyway when you do file I 485 or CP so might as well keep it ready now.
hair Pink Prom Dresses
gg_ny
08-21 09:20 AM
Is there a chance to attach SKIL provisions towards higher degree GC retrogressed applicants to this appropriation efforts?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
more...
gcseeker28
07-28 03:54 PM
So, I was talking to one of the attorneys and he mentioned that one should contest the denial within 30 days and as long as it is approved, we don't have any problem. But, if the MTR is rejected, then all the days that have been accumulated after the denial will be in illegal status.
What is the probability of cases of MTR getting approved after the relevant documents have been published?
For the client letter denial reason, did anybody furnish further documents?
Appreciate your inputs
What is the probability of cases of MTR getting approved after the relevant documents have been published?
For the client letter denial reason, did anybody furnish further documents?
Appreciate your inputs
hot US$205.90. Halter Neckline
snathan
02-09 09:23 PM
Infact, I got good news today. My MTR approved after 3 months. My 485 was denied due to withdrawal of I140 by previous employer (AC21 case).
So I had applied MTR and approved today. Looks like USCIS understood the error and approving all MTR (I didn't hear a single MTR rejection on AC21 case )
Celebrate the good news and donate here at
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23597&page=1000
So I had applied MTR and approved today. Looks like USCIS understood the error and approving all MTR (I didn't hear a single MTR rejection on AC21 case )
Celebrate the good news and donate here at
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23597&page=1000
more...
house Affordable modest prom dresses
LayoffBlog
01-27 01:32 PM
With a second successive quarterly loss on the cards for ING Group NV, the company plans to layoff 7,000 employees, and appoint Jan Hommen - the present chairman of the ING board, and the former chief financial officer of Philips Electronics - as its new CEO in the place of the current chief executive Michel [...]http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=layoffblog.com&blog=5255291&post=1239&subd=layoffblog&ref=&feed=1
More... (http://layoffblog.com/2009/01/26/ing-group-to-layoff-7000-employees/)
More... (http://layoffblog.com/2009/01/26/ing-group-to-layoff-7000-employees/)
tattoo Black Prom Dresses,
gantilk
04-28 09:44 AM
when you say new fees, i assuem it is $340 . Correct ??
more...
pictures chiffon prom dress
raysaikat
06-20 08:59 PM
[snip...]
As long as you have the I-797 approval petition you are good.
S/he has to have a valid I-94 to stay in the country legally. I-797 usually comes with an I-94. However, what the original poster said is that his/her I-94 is going to expire. I am interpreting the statement to mean that among the I-94's (one or more) s/he holds, the one with farthest validity is going to expire. If it does, s/he has to go out and get a new I-94 while re-entering. If s/he applies for some other status, and relevant I-797 comes with another I-94, then that's different. The bottom-line is, s/he has to have a valid I-94. It is irrelevant if the I-94 is given by the IO at the entry post or attached to an I-797.
As long as you have the I-797 approval petition you are good.
S/he has to have a valid I-94 to stay in the country legally. I-797 usually comes with an I-94. However, what the original poster said is that his/her I-94 is going to expire. I am interpreting the statement to mean that among the I-94's (one or more) s/he holds, the one with farthest validity is going to expire. If it does, s/he has to go out and get a new I-94 while re-entering. If s/he applies for some other status, and relevant I-797 comes with another I-94, then that's different. The bottom-line is, s/he has to have a valid I-94. It is irrelevant if the I-94 is given by the IO at the entry post or attached to an I-797.
dresses Prom Dresses
WaldenPond
06-29 09:04 AM
Hello jkays94,
Excellent post. The fear of some kind of retribution due to association or participation in standing up to put forward our grievances is something that has, in some way effected every effort for making the change. And often times, this fear is based on lack of knowledge of the system and law.
A friend of mine had sent the information about a book ‘Democracy in America’. And if I may quote from that book -
“In no country in the world has the principle of association been more successfully used, or more unsparingly applied to a multitude of different objects, than in America.”
“The most natural privilege of man, next to the right of acting for himself, is that of combining his exertions with those of his fellow-creatures, and of acting in common with them. I am therefore led to conclude that the right of association is almost as inalienable as the right of personal liberty.”
At the same time, the fear of retribution for some of the members is well understood as we all have families and responsibilities. And everybody’s perception on the level of risk involved and the capacity to take the risk for a cause/purpose is different. We ought to overcome our fears as this is a just cause and we are petitioning to bring back the fairness to the system. The system was never designed or intended to work in a way where it takes 6-12 years for people to get their employment based green cards. And as you rightly pointed out, CIR presents us all with the opportunity to fix the problem. I have lot of respect for Randallemery, who is a born citizen of US and continues to help us in this just cause.
Thank you Randallemery.
WaldenPond
Excellent post. The fear of some kind of retribution due to association or participation in standing up to put forward our grievances is something that has, in some way effected every effort for making the change. And often times, this fear is based on lack of knowledge of the system and law.
A friend of mine had sent the information about a book ‘Democracy in America’. And if I may quote from that book -
“In no country in the world has the principle of association been more successfully used, or more unsparingly applied to a multitude of different objects, than in America.”
“The most natural privilege of man, next to the right of acting for himself, is that of combining his exertions with those of his fellow-creatures, and of acting in common with them. I am therefore led to conclude that the right of association is almost as inalienable as the right of personal liberty.”
At the same time, the fear of retribution for some of the members is well understood as we all have families and responsibilities. And everybody’s perception on the level of risk involved and the capacity to take the risk for a cause/purpose is different. We ought to overcome our fears as this is a just cause and we are petitioning to bring back the fairness to the system. The system was never designed or intended to work in a way where it takes 6-12 years for people to get their employment based green cards. And as you rightly pointed out, CIR presents us all with the opportunity to fix the problem. I have lot of respect for Randallemery, who is a born citizen of US and continues to help us in this just cause.
Thank you Randallemery.
WaldenPond
more...
makeup US$142.90. Strapless Floor
arunmohan
03-06 11:19 PM
I will fax it on Monday.
girlfriend Chelsea#39;s Prom Dress
Hinglish
01-08 12:44 AM
Thank you qasleuth ..... ..... ..... ..... frack you
Just read your post and you will see the same dastardly mistakes that I supposedly made.
Can you phrase a single complete sentence without '.....' ?
Dastardly means cowardly. What does "dastardly atrocious english" mean in the context of Neha's post ?
Sentences start with capital letters, need to have commas, and there should be proper usage of articles. I can point out atrocious mistakes in every sentence of your post.
Apart from your atrocious English, your profile is incorrect, your presumptions/tone is even more atrocious (addressing the poster as 'Miss', using words like 'hell'). Best of luck.
Just read your post and you will see the same dastardly mistakes that I supposedly made.
Can you phrase a single complete sentence without '.....' ?
Dastardly means cowardly. What does "dastardly atrocious english" mean in the context of Neha's post ?
Sentences start with capital letters, need to have commas, and there should be proper usage of articles. I can point out atrocious mistakes in every sentence of your post.
Apart from your atrocious English, your profile is incorrect, your presumptions/tone is even more atrocious (addressing the poster as 'Miss', using words like 'hell'). Best of luck.
hairstyles US$65.90. Halter Neckline
mytrix76
01-11 07:54 AM
You Can work for the same Employer On H1 even after entering US on AP.
It is NOT clear Yet if we can file for H1 Transfer with another employer after entering US on Advance Parole.
Please let us know if anybody has done this successfully.
Thanks for the response. Can you please tell me how you were able to confirm that one can continue on H1 with same employer. Did you do this personally or did you hear from an attorney. The reason I am asking is that I want to be completely sure about it before I implemented it
Thanks again.
It is NOT clear Yet if we can file for H1 Transfer with another employer after entering US on Advance Parole.
Please let us know if anybody has done this successfully.
Thanks for the response. Can you please tell me how you were able to confirm that one can continue on H1 with same employer. Did you do this personally or did you hear from an attorney. The reason I am asking is that I want to be completely sure about it before I implemented it
Thanks again.
ssnd03
08-16 08:15 AM
Hi -
Does anyone have good or bad experiences with Indian immigration officers in the airport with AP while coming back to US?
I mean, do these guys know what an AP is?
Is it better to get the H1B stamping done?
I am sure folks on this forum will be going to India for the winter vacations, so any responses would benefit a lot of people..
I think sometimes Indian immigration officers and even airline staff get confused with AP. Even in Germany the guy checking the passports was looking at AP funny.
But on average I think they know what it is. I have traveled to India through Germany and I made it back with some anxious moments when they all looked confused at AP.
You may need a transit visa through Europe if you don't have a US visa except AP. I didn't have it though and I was ok. But I had an emergency trip so no time to get these visas.
Does anyone have good or bad experiences with Indian immigration officers in the airport with AP while coming back to US?
I mean, do these guys know what an AP is?
Is it better to get the H1B stamping done?
I am sure folks on this forum will be going to India for the winter vacations, so any responses would benefit a lot of people..
I think sometimes Indian immigration officers and even airline staff get confused with AP. Even in Germany the guy checking the passports was looking at AP funny.
But on average I think they know what it is. I have traveled to India through Germany and I made it back with some anxious moments when they all looked confused at AP.
You may need a transit visa through Europe if you don't have a US visa except AP. I didn't have it though and I was ok. But I had an emergency trip so no time to get these visas.
nrakkati
08-15 12:28 PM
Congrats and welcome to IV, hope you become an active member and contribute your efforts to IV.
Sure...Just contributed $100, will do more in coming months.
Sure...Just contributed $100, will do more in coming months.
No comments:
Post a Comment