arorasa
01-01 01:20 AM
Good thread. Encourage more people to vote !
wallpaper Skoda Octavia RS Combi
ras
04-03 01:22 AM
there is usually a respond by date on the RFE. In my case it was slightly beyond 12 weeks....
I have the RFE, it doesn't state the exact instead mentions 12 weeks from the date of this letter. And the date of the letter is Jan 8, 2008
I have the RFE, it doesn't state the exact instead mentions 12 weeks from the date of this letter. And the date of the letter is Jan 8, 2008
chanduv23
10-02 10:08 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
2011 Skoda Octavia RS: Die
njboy
12-17 09:51 AM
suman, what was the reason it was denied? Each reason has a different recourse, for some reasons there may be none..
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.
sundarpn
06-04 09:40 AM
noob question...
hasn't the bill passed in the senate already?
Is there a deadline for it being cleaned up and passed or scrapped in the house?
hasn't the bill passed in the senate already?
Is there a deadline for it being cleaned up and passed or scrapped in the house?
more...
sanju
01-26 02:12 PM
Lonjourney,
Any update, what did your lawyer say? What did you end up doing?
Any update, what did your lawyer say? What did you end up doing?
2010 Skoda Octavia RS Combi –
tabletpc
06-17 01:40 PM
Been there, done that , do this�!!!
Long story short. I am not sure if its illegal , but surly it is questionable and could make your immigrations issues complicated.
I contemplated a lot when I developed the iPhone App. Looking at the number of downloads now , I could have made good money �. but could have been at the cost of some complications. With 485 pending I did not wanted to land into another delay�!!!
So play it safe for now�keep it as free.
For those interested in iPhone programming resources�..iTunes has lots of podcast. Stamford podcasts are my favorite.
Long story short. I am not sure if its illegal , but surly it is questionable and could make your immigrations issues complicated.
I contemplated a lot when I developed the iPhone App. Looking at the number of downloads now , I could have made good money �. but could have been at the cost of some complications. With 485 pending I did not wanted to land into another delay�!!!
So play it safe for now�keep it as free.
For those interested in iPhone programming resources�..iTunes has lots of podcast. Stamford podcasts are my favorite.
more...
green_card
07-20 01:58 PM
stop the guessing game. give some concrete info if you know it or let someone else that knows answer.
what you believe doesnt amount to a hill of beans. no offense.
I do not believe they really have time to sort out by priority date if sep'30 is the date they need to get 40K approvals through.
what you believe doesnt amount to a hill of beans. no offense.
I do not believe they really have time to sort out by priority date if sep'30 is the date they need to get 40K approvals through.
hair Skoda Octavia Combi RS
sargon
02-25 10:09 AM
LoL. No wonder she got caught. She is not only a thief, she is also stupid.
:rolleyes:
Details says your friend and the title says you (used 'I').
Which is correct. ?
:rolleyes:
Details says your friend and the title says you (used 'I').
Which is correct. ?
more...
silpa_23
05-19 06:08 PM
Greetings,
In brief, I have applied for I-485 when I was single and now priority dates are current. I need to add my spouse. Do I need to apply for I-485 for myself again? Below are the timelines.
Thanks in advance.
In August 2006.
1. Employer A
2. I was Single.
3. Files I-140 and I-485 concurrently.
4. Schedule A expired.
5. Application moved to Eb3.
In June 2007
1.Employer B (Moved in June 2007 via H1b transfer).
Married in 2008.
April 2010.
1. Employer B.
2. New I-140 filed in EB2, approved.
3. Ported EB3 PD of Aug 2006.
May 2011.
1. PD will be current in June 2011.
2. I need apply I-485 for my spouse.
Do I need to re-apply for I-485 and G-235a for the principal applicant.
In brief, I have applied for I-485 when I was single and now priority dates are current. I need to add my spouse. Do I need to apply for I-485 for myself again? Below are the timelines.
Thanks in advance.
In August 2006.
1. Employer A
2. I was Single.
3. Files I-140 and I-485 concurrently.
4. Schedule A expired.
5. Application moved to Eb3.
In June 2007
1.Employer B (Moved in June 2007 via H1b transfer).
Married in 2008.
April 2010.
1. Employer B.
2. New I-140 filed in EB2, approved.
3. Ported EB3 PD of Aug 2006.
May 2011.
1. PD will be current in June 2011.
2. I need apply I-485 for my spouse.
Do I need to re-apply for I-485 and G-235a for the principal applicant.
hot 2010 Skoda Octavia RS Combi
singhsa3
08-19 12:48 PM
Yep, just passed level III , today. Now will start applying for the charter.
good to find a fellow CFA candidate/member here... are you done with the exams?
good to find a fellow CFA candidate/member here... are you done with the exams?
more...
house skoda-octavia-rs
ajp5
11-02 12:31 AM
Talk to your company Liar (lawyer) first. My non-legal advise is
1. Ask lawyer to request more time for the RFE
2. If thats not possible - send what you can. eg W2 , paystubs etc etc. Try to get the client letter from your employer. If you get it in next 10 days, additional evidence is always welcome by USCIS I guess.
You cannot threaten your employer for something like this. Talk to them & resolve this with the help of your manager.....You have 1 last day ie Monday before last Fedex dropoff time.....reset your stopwatch.......maybe make a movie out of it and post it on youtube:)
1. Ask lawyer to request more time for the RFE
2. If thats not possible - send what you can. eg W2 , paystubs etc etc. Try to get the client letter from your employer. If you get it in next 10 days, additional evidence is always welcome by USCIS I guess.
You cannot threaten your employer for something like this. Talk to them & resolve this with the help of your manager.....You have 1 last day ie Monday before last Fedex dropoff time.....reset your stopwatch.......maybe make a movie out of it and post it on youtube:)
tattoo 2010 Skoda Octavia RS Combi
mnq1979
05-21 03:10 PM
You have to get it from your prospective permanant employer. If you have intention of working for your past employer after you get GC, that would be it,
If you've made decision to work for your current employer on Permanant basis then that would be it..
It's not good or bad.. just keep it simple
hmmm well then lets say if i send the letter from my employer who sponsored me for my green card? how long do i have to work for him liek when can i change my employer after gettign GC?
If you've made decision to work for your current employer on Permanant basis then that would be it..
It's not good or bad.. just keep it simple
hmmm well then lets say if i send the letter from my employer who sponsored me for my green card? how long do i have to work for him liek when can i change my employer after gettign GC?
more...
pictures 2010 Skoda Octavia RS Combi
adusumilli
10-01 01:32 PM
I had same message for the I-485 but my EAD is approved. i called NSC about the FP print notice and they said it is issued in error and everything is fine. i have FP appointment on 10/05. So i think you just give a call and check with USCIS.
1. My EAD application status at USCIS website got changed to,
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
this morning. My heartfelt thanks to ImmigrationVoice activists for this.
My spouse's EAD application status still shows as,
Current Status: Case received and pending.
In my case, my spouse's application is the derivative application of mine. Any incidence of spouse's EAD case getting stuck while the primary's application going through?
2. Also, Is EAD approval anyway related/tied to I-485 Application? In that case, it is understandable for my spouse not to see her status changed. Because, her I-485 Applications status is shown as,
Current Status: Fingerprint fee rejected and notice mailed; case in suspense.
though we both have already finished our finger printing. Our attorney says, its USCIS's mistake and he has already sent $70(once again) towards her fingerprinting fees to be on the safer side.
Any information would be helpful.
Thanks,
1. My EAD application status at USCIS website got changed to,
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
this morning. My heartfelt thanks to ImmigrationVoice activists for this.
My spouse's EAD application status still shows as,
Current Status: Case received and pending.
In my case, my spouse's application is the derivative application of mine. Any incidence of spouse's EAD case getting stuck while the primary's application going through?
2. Also, Is EAD approval anyway related/tied to I-485 Application? In that case, it is understandable for my spouse not to see her status changed. Because, her I-485 Applications status is shown as,
Current Status: Fingerprint fee rejected and notice mailed; case in suspense.
though we both have already finished our finger printing. Our attorney says, its USCIS's mistake and he has already sent $70(once again) towards her fingerprinting fees to be on the safer side.
Any information would be helpful.
Thanks,
dresses Skoda Octavia RS amp; Octavia
ALLYYU
08-16 10:13 AM
Does anyone have any idea what the code stands for.
485 RD 7/2
ND 7/30
FP date 8/28 for both me any my husband
FP code 3
485 RD 7/2
ND 7/30
FP date 8/28 for both me any my husband
FP code 3
more...
makeup skoda octavia vrs tdi 2010
Administrator2
03-28 01:41 PM
As needhelp! clarified, we will fix all these issues over the weekend. Kindly keep updating this thread with any tracker related issue you would like to report.
Also, kindly input processing information in your profile so that the tracker is more efficiently used by you and all other IV members.
Also, kindly input processing information in your profile so that the tracker is more efficiently used by you and all other IV members.
girlfriend Skoda Octavia RS Combi - przód
REQUIRE_GC
10-16 12:32 PM
I had only one lud after fingerprints code 3 (same Day - Thu day).
:( Does that mean my case is stuck in Name check.??????????????? :(
I have Fp done on 13th OCT. LUD on CASE STATUS on OCT 15, OCT 16.
I had two fingers matched. I dontknow if it is normal
:( Does that mean my case is stuck in Name check.??????????????? :(
I have Fp done on 13th OCT. LUD on CASE STATUS on OCT 15, OCT 16.
I had two fingers matched. I dontknow if it is normal
hairstyles Skoda Octavia RS TDI PD Engine
CHHAYA
04-28 12:47 PM
Travelled back from India today by continental flight from mumbai till newark non stop. My H1b is expiring on 19th june. Had a ISSUELESS entry. The guy asked your petition is valid only till 19th June. I replied I am going to file an extension. he said you will be needing to reenter the country after it. I said "yes, I know". He said he is going to give in I-94 valid till 29th june just in case if I have any issues. That is 10 more days after my petition is expring.
Guy was very nice and supporting. We shared some jokes . he notices that by passport has writing that If I take citizenship of any other country than I have to surrender the passport. he asked "india dont allow dual citizenship". I said "No". he replied "It sucks" and we laughed together.
My advice dont let current recession effect your trip. If you need any more information PM me. I will be happy to assist.
Also, just I wanted to share the information becuase many people seemed worried about this.
Good luck :) :) :) :)
I entered US at Newar POE on 7/15/08 based on AP which expired on 7/20/08. They give me I-94 valid until 7/15/09. I do not have any plan to go out of country till end of 2010. Do I have to renew AP or I-94?
Guy was very nice and supporting. We shared some jokes . he notices that by passport has writing that If I take citizenship of any other country than I have to surrender the passport. he asked "india dont allow dual citizenship". I said "No". he replied "It sucks" and we laughed together.
My advice dont let current recession effect your trip. If you need any more information PM me. I will be happy to assist.
Also, just I wanted to share the information becuase many people seemed worried about this.
Good luck :) :) :) :)
I entered US at Newar POE on 7/15/08 based on AP which expired on 7/20/08. They give me I-94 valid until 7/15/09. I do not have any plan to go out of country till end of 2010. Do I have to renew AP or I-94?
abhay
10-30 09:19 AM
I did some mistakes when I went for Visa intervew in March 2007, I have done a new form on line and printed again.If they have not changed the usage of online DS-156 you could do the same thing.
Some fields cannot be edited after you save for the first time like Passport Details (Number, Place of issuance etc).
Some fields cannot be edited after you save for the first time like Passport Details (Number, Place of issuance etc).
pachai_attai
08-17 07:58 AM
sajimm, I was in similar situation like yours. During Dec 2004, Our doctor directly took xray test instead of TB skin test. Thats the reason I got NOID on 07/20/07.
I submitted my new 693 along with new TB skin test result and the case processing resumes on 08/15. The LUD is changing every day after that.
I submitted my new 693 along with new TB skin test result and the case processing resumes on 08/15. The LUD is changing every day after that.
No comments:
Post a Comment