abracadabra102
10-18 06:09 PM
Some of our members like JunRUN, Hermione etc. already guessed that 800,000 is the total no. of applications received including 131/765 etc. Kudos to you!!.
pappu
12-23 12:37 AM
REMINIDNG EVERYONE ABOUT THE MEETING THIS SUNDAY IN STAMFORD MALL..... PLEASE PM ME FOR THE CONTACT PHONE NUMBER ......
Thanks Anurakt.
Im bumping up your thread and hoping for many members to show up in your Tri-state chapter meeting.
Thanks Anurakt.
Im bumping up your thread and hoping for many members to show up in your Tri-state chapter meeting.
bikram_das_in
06-18 11:50 PM
could you please explain?
UPDATED my original post: also, im on my 7th yr extension and it will expire on FEB2010... will I have problems with my extension?
You will get your H1B extended pending appeal on PERM.
UPDATED my original post: also, im on my 7th yr extension and it will expire on FEB2010... will I have problems with my extension?
You will get your H1B extended pending appeal on PERM.
reddymjm
12-30 09:52 AM
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foi-act.htm
you should be able to get a copy of ur i140.
you should be able to get a copy of ur i140.
more...
kennyc
May 25th, 2005, 02:13 AM
It's hard to explain, but the first two don't really do anything for me. The third one is certainly a step in the right direction (totally fugly JPEG artifacts ignored), and I think that with a bit of post processing you could really take it in some interesting directions. My eye only notices the deer after a little while; if you wanted to focus more on the deer, you could use a masked adjustment layer to subtly (the key word is subtly - very subtly) darken everything but the animal, and another adjustment layer to add a tiny bit of contrast only to the deer. Of course, QJ will come up with many other and more creative things to try, but that's off the top of my head a few ideas to start with. :)
These are of course "reduced" causing the artifacts and the deer photo was cropped considerably. (I've got to get me that telephoto lens I'm lusting for.)
Thanks for your comments.
KAC
These are of course "reduced" causing the artifacts and the deer photo was cropped considerably. (I've got to get me that telephoto lens I'm lusting for.)
Thanks for your comments.
KAC
prdgl
02-18 09:45 PM
I have been thinking about choosing between EB3 and EB2. I hold a Masters degree from US and have 2 yrs of experience. I am wondering whether to go in EB3 (which is very simple and easy to get with no scrutiny - SURE TO GET APPROVED) and wait for a very long time in the queue OR go for EB2 (which is more difficult and have to pass through all the scrutiny from I-140) and then wait, whose waiting time might be lesser than EB3's
Which one is best to do ? Your suggestions please.
Which one is best to do ? Your suggestions please.
more...
sparky_jones
10-01 08:19 AM
^^^^
cox
January 31st, 2005, 12:03 AM
I liked the father & son pic too. Some crop will help to emphasize the icy feel too. It's got a happier feel than the others IMHO... We're all our worst critics, so keep your camera and keep shooting ;)
more...
sanher
10-29 12:16 PM
I am scared to see this. I am flying to backhome for stamping this weekend.
Googler
02-14 04:24 PM
"Based on a review of the facts and bedrock principles of administrative agency law, the Court finds that USCIS�s name check requirement has
(1) never been authorized by Congress;
(2) is not mentioned or contemplated by any fair reading of the current USCIS regulations; and
(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions..."
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08.pdf
What a fabulous ruling this is.
One question for Lazycis:
# (3) actually reads "(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions for naturalization, particularly because Plaintiffs have already undergone a name check in order to achieve LPR status and will clear the �fingerprint check� described in the Memorandum of January 25, 2008.10 The fingerprint check will show whether an LPR who is applying for naturalization has had any contact with the criminal justice system that would warrant denial of the petition."
As far as I can tell even (1) and (2) only apply to Naturalization applicants.
So the question of the hour is: are (1) and (2) true for AOS cases? I am asking this question because to argue a case for compelling recapture you need an AOS version of Baylson's ruling + the Galvez-Howerton decision (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223315&postcount=121). Only then can you say that there was affirmative misconduct in 2003 and hence compel recapture.
(1) never been authorized by Congress;
(2) is not mentioned or contemplated by any fair reading of the current USCIS regulations; and
(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions..."
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08.pdf
What a fabulous ruling this is.
One question for Lazycis:
# (3) actually reads "(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions for naturalization, particularly because Plaintiffs have already undergone a name check in order to achieve LPR status and will clear the �fingerprint check� described in the Memorandum of January 25, 2008.10 The fingerprint check will show whether an LPR who is applying for naturalization has had any contact with the criminal justice system that would warrant denial of the petition."
As far as I can tell even (1) and (2) only apply to Naturalization applicants.
So the question of the hour is: are (1) and (2) true for AOS cases? I am asking this question because to argue a case for compelling recapture you need an AOS version of Baylson's ruling + the Galvez-Howerton decision (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223315&postcount=121). Only then can you say that there was affirmative misconduct in 2003 and hence compel recapture.
more...
murali77
09-16 03:10 AM
What does this mean ?
"Our electronic records show that your application is with the adjudications officer for review."
EB2
PD JAN-06(NSC)
Thanks
"Our electronic records show that your application is with the adjudications officer for review."
EB2
PD JAN-06(NSC)
Thanks
eers
07-17 11:03 PM
if u go to the doc, they will perform the the tests that are ok to perform..
Check with doc if they will accept the test results (PAP , HIV , etc) from your obgyns office. These tests are already done during initial stages of pregnancy.
Finally the doc will add a note to the medical report that some tests/shots are omited due to pregnancy.
I went through same thing..
Will the case be accepted with this partial report-- It will be.
Will there be an RFE? -- i dont know.. may be
Check with doc if they will accept the test results (PAP , HIV , etc) from your obgyns office. These tests are already done during initial stages of pregnancy.
Finally the doc will add a note to the medical report that some tests/shots are omited due to pregnancy.
I went through same thing..
Will the case be accepted with this partial report-- It will be.
Will there be an RFE? -- i dont know.. may be
more...
InTheMoment
10-14 12:25 PM
Also, a minor correction to the answer on whether all have to wait for 5 years after GC to get naturalized...the only exceptions are military personnel *and* those who married US Citizens (marriage based GC's) - these categories have to wait only 3 years
webm
12-15 08:59 PM
They might be sending second FP notice every 15mnths of first/consecutive FP's done once it expires in their system..wait for that notice and dont worry about it now..
more...
cox
October 22nd, 2005, 12:05 AM
There have been some E coast meets at Indy, but as far as I know, no W coast. QJ and I have threatened to meet here since we both live around SF Bay Area, but haven't managed it yet. I'm game for a get together, but my work schedule is hideous. :(
H1B2GC
09-30 07:24 PM
Option 1:
You could write a letter to USCIS to let them know that this attorney who filed your I-485 does not represent you anymore and future correspondence be addressed to you directly and also to revoke the G-28. You will not get any letter from USCIS confirming that your request was processed.
Option 2:
You could hire a new attorney to represent you. In that case he would file a new G-28, the USCIS does send a letter confirming that they accepted your new attorney representation. Meanwhile, until this happens, all the correspondence will go to the old attorney who could potentially screw up your case.
If you are lucky enough and don't get a RFE till the new G-28 is accepted, You are SAFE. Also, any attorney you hire will charge you the FULL fees for I-485 filing that will be at least $3000.00 plus additional $5000.00 (If your case gets complicated). My best bet for you is to use option 1 and save your hard earned $. As you'll be taking your chances anyways.
You should urge LIVE to start up an emergency rescue service (similar to what AAA does), i.e., to get an attorney who would help taking up cases for members only who suffer from unscrupulous attorneys for free and charge a low monthly membership fees till one gets the green card. I hope someone from LIVE is reading this post?
You could write a letter to USCIS to let them know that this attorney who filed your I-485 does not represent you anymore and future correspondence be addressed to you directly and also to revoke the G-28. You will not get any letter from USCIS confirming that your request was processed.
Option 2:
You could hire a new attorney to represent you. In that case he would file a new G-28, the USCIS does send a letter confirming that they accepted your new attorney representation. Meanwhile, until this happens, all the correspondence will go to the old attorney who could potentially screw up your case.
If you are lucky enough and don't get a RFE till the new G-28 is accepted, You are SAFE. Also, any attorney you hire will charge you the FULL fees for I-485 filing that will be at least $3000.00 plus additional $5000.00 (If your case gets complicated). My best bet for you is to use option 1 and save your hard earned $. As you'll be taking your chances anyways.
You should urge LIVE to start up an emergency rescue service (similar to what AAA does), i.e., to get an attorney who would help taking up cases for members only who suffer from unscrupulous attorneys for free and charge a low monthly membership fees till one gets the green card. I hope someone from LIVE is reading this post?
more...
actonwang
01-18 12:42 PM
yes. i agree above
I think the author is referring to the first step (labor) which INS will undoubtfully reject a lot of applications if in recession or in down time.
I think the author is referring to the first step (labor) which INS will undoubtfully reject a lot of applications if in recession or in down time.
gaffarkhan
07-16 06:15 PM
so we r in same boat. Mine recd date Oct 2nd 2006.
dilipb
01-31 03:42 PM
I applied for 485 during last years July surge I think on July 19th 2007.
As per these 2 links it shows that 485 processing date is at July 19th 2007.
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I am in PITTSBURGH, here too it shows as July 19th
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/officeProcesstimes.jsp?selectedOffice=55
I have already received EAD etc.
Does this mean that my Green card processing is starting now ?
Can anyone comment ?
As per these 2 links it shows that 485 processing date is at July 19th 2007.
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I am in PITTSBURGH, here too it shows as July 19th
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/officeProcesstimes.jsp?selectedOffice=55
I have already received EAD etc.
Does this mean that my Green card processing is starting now ?
Can anyone comment ?
abracadabra102
11-07 08:15 AM
1. The 14th amendment is what this country created as a result of the civil war to end slavery. The congress-critters thinking of repealing this amendment either have forgotten their history or are evil in ways people have not understood.
2 and 3. Expectations of a balanced budget is an excellent example of not understanding the consequences of previous policies. Either a. reduce spending or b. increase taxation.
Neither is acceptable, but we still want a balanced budget. When I was young, I learnt these basics of supply and demand by carefully managing my pocket money. I suppose the rich congress kids never had to think like that.
4. I don't really know enough to comment on this
I will comment on 4.
Estate tax is in principle a very good idea. If some one dies, a portion of that persons estate is taxed (at almost 50%) before it is distributed to whomever it was willed. This promotes re-distribution of wealth, prevents concentration of wealth in a few families. Incentivises to work and earn one's own money than depend on parents property. This estate tax was first introduced by Augustus Caesar about 2000 years ago and almost all western nations use it to varying degree. I wish this tax is imposed in India too.
Warren Buffet and Bill Gates both support estate tax. There are some arguments against it. One argument is that if children do not have right to parents property, then society (through government) does not have that right either. This is basically a moral argument but we do many things for greater good at the cost of individual right (forcefully buying land for public works like roads etc.) and is generally accepted.
2 and 3. Expectations of a balanced budget is an excellent example of not understanding the consequences of previous policies. Either a. reduce spending or b. increase taxation.
Neither is acceptable, but we still want a balanced budget. When I was young, I learnt these basics of supply and demand by carefully managing my pocket money. I suppose the rich congress kids never had to think like that.
4. I don't really know enough to comment on this
I will comment on 4.
Estate tax is in principle a very good idea. If some one dies, a portion of that persons estate is taxed (at almost 50%) before it is distributed to whomever it was willed. This promotes re-distribution of wealth, prevents concentration of wealth in a few families. Incentivises to work and earn one's own money than depend on parents property. This estate tax was first introduced by Augustus Caesar about 2000 years ago and almost all western nations use it to varying degree. I wish this tax is imposed in India too.
Warren Buffet and Bill Gates both support estate tax. There are some arguments against it. One argument is that if children do not have right to parents property, then society (through government) does not have that right either. This is basically a moral argument but we do many things for greater good at the cost of individual right (forcefully buying land for public works like roads etc.) and is generally accepted.
ksurjan
07-23 03:23 PM
yellow :D
Next will be : What was the color of your envelope ? ..LOL C'mon people . :D :D
Next will be : What was the color of your envelope ? ..LOL C'mon people . :D :D
