anilsal
10-05 04:55 PM
IV Core.
Another visual proof of your dedication to the cause.
Please continue the great work.
Another visual proof of your dedication to the cause.
Please continue the great work.
wallpaper hit movie Fast Five from
singhsa3
01-07 11:17 AM
It is a family event also, so please feel free to bring your spouses, fiancee , kids, etc..
permfiling
10-28 01:23 PM
Nope did not getthe I-797 yet, just an e-mail from USCIS. This was at NSC
Did you get your physical green card? Have you completed your FP?
I got the I-797 approval notice in mail but no card yet. I heard CARD takes few weeks.
Did you get your physical green card? Have you completed your FP?
I got the I-797 approval notice in mail but no card yet. I heard CARD takes few weeks.
2011 fast five cars list.
drirshad
03-13 04:31 PM
03/13/2009: Senate Bill, S. 577 to Punish Immigration Sharks Defrauding and Victimizing Immigrants and Related Parties
Senate Dianne Feinstine from California, cosponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy, introduced this bill in the Senate yesterday. The full text of the bill is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. SCHEMES TO DEFRAUD ALIENS.
(a) Amendments to Title 18.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:``�1041. Schemes to defraud aliens
``(a) In General.--Any person who willfully and knowingly executes a scheme or artifice, in connection with any matter that is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws or any matter the offender willfully and knowingly claims or represents is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws, to--
``(1) defraud any person; or
``(2) obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Here is the background for this bill: The Immigration Fraud Prevention Act would prevent and punish fraud and misrepresentation in the context of immigration proceedings. The act would create a new Federal crime to penalize those who engage in schemes to defraud aliens in connection with Federal immigration laws. Specifically, the act would make it a Federal crime to wilfully and knowingly defraud or obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises; and to wilfully, knowingly, and falsely represent that an individual is an attorney or accredited representative in any matter arising under Federal immigration law. Violations of these crimes would result in a fine, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to use task forces currently in existence to detect and investigate individuals who are in violation of the immigration fraud crimes as created by the bill. The act would also work to prevent immigration fraud by requiring that Immigration Judges issue warnings about unauthorized practice of immigration law to immigrants in removal proceedings, similar to the current law that requires notification of pro bono legal services to these immigrants; requiring the Attorney General to provide outreach to the immigrant community to help prevent fraud; providing that any materials used to carry out notification on immigration law fraud is done in the appropriate language for that community; and requiring the distribution of the disciplinary list of individuals not authorized to appear before the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, currently maintained by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, EOIR. Unfortunately, the need for Federal action to prevent and prosecute immigration fraud has escalated in recent years as citizens and non-citizens attempt to navigate the immigration legal system. Thus far, only States have sought to regulate the unauthorized practice of immigration law. Since immigration law is a federal matter, I believe the solution to such misrepresentation and fraud should be addressed by Congress. By enacting this bill, Congress would help prevent more victims like Vincent Smith, a Mexican national who has resided in California since 1975. His wife is an American citizen, and they live with their 6 U.S. citizen children in Palmdale, CA. Mr. Smith would likely have received a green card at least two different times during his stay in California. However, in attempting to get legal counsel, Mr. Smith hired someone whom he thought was an attorney, but was not. As a result, Mr. Smith was charged more than $10,000 for processing his immigration paperwork, which was never filed. Mr. Smith now has no legal status and faces removal proceedings. Another victim of immigration fraud is Raul, a Mexican national, who came to the United States in 2000. He also married a U.S. citizen, Loraina, making him eligible to apply for a green card. Raul and his wife went to Jose for legal help. Jose's business card said he had a ``law office'' and that he was an ``immigration specialist.'' But Jose was not a specialist and charged Raul $4,000 to file a frivolous asylum petition. While Raul thought he was going to receive a green card, he was instead placed into removal proceedings. From California to New York, there are hundreds of stories like these. Many immigrants are preyed on because of their fears--others on their hope of realizing the American dream. They are charged exorbitant fees for the filing of frivolous paperwork that clog our immigration courts and keep families and businesses waiting in limbo for years. Law enforcement officials say that many fraudulent ``immigration specialists'' close their businesses or move on to another part of the state or country before they can be held accountable. They can make $100,000 to $200,000 a year and the few who have been caught rarely serve more than a few months in jail. Often victims of such crimes are deported, sending them back to their home countries without accountability for the perpetrator of the fraud. Most recently, hundreds of immigrants were exploited by Victor M. Espinal, who was arrested for allegedly posing as an immigration attorney. Nearly 125 of Mr. Espinal's clients attended the New York City Bar Association's free clinic to address their legal and immigration options. According to prosecutors, Mr. Espinal falsely claimed on his business cards that he was licensed and admitted to the California bar as well as the bar in the Dominican Republic. Organizations such as the Los Angeles Country Bar Association, National Immigration Forum, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and American Bar Association have been documenting this exploitation for many years.
Senate Dianne Feinstine from California, cosponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy, introduced this bill in the Senate yesterday. The full text of the bill is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. SCHEMES TO DEFRAUD ALIENS.
(a) Amendments to Title 18.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:``�1041. Schemes to defraud aliens
``(a) In General.--Any person who willfully and knowingly executes a scheme or artifice, in connection with any matter that is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws or any matter the offender willfully and knowingly claims or represents is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws, to--
``(1) defraud any person; or
``(2) obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Here is the background for this bill: The Immigration Fraud Prevention Act would prevent and punish fraud and misrepresentation in the context of immigration proceedings. The act would create a new Federal crime to penalize those who engage in schemes to defraud aliens in connection with Federal immigration laws. Specifically, the act would make it a Federal crime to wilfully and knowingly defraud or obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises; and to wilfully, knowingly, and falsely represent that an individual is an attorney or accredited representative in any matter arising under Federal immigration law. Violations of these crimes would result in a fine, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to use task forces currently in existence to detect and investigate individuals who are in violation of the immigration fraud crimes as created by the bill. The act would also work to prevent immigration fraud by requiring that Immigration Judges issue warnings about unauthorized practice of immigration law to immigrants in removal proceedings, similar to the current law that requires notification of pro bono legal services to these immigrants; requiring the Attorney General to provide outreach to the immigrant community to help prevent fraud; providing that any materials used to carry out notification on immigration law fraud is done in the appropriate language for that community; and requiring the distribution of the disciplinary list of individuals not authorized to appear before the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, currently maintained by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, EOIR. Unfortunately, the need for Federal action to prevent and prosecute immigration fraud has escalated in recent years as citizens and non-citizens attempt to navigate the immigration legal system. Thus far, only States have sought to regulate the unauthorized practice of immigration law. Since immigration law is a federal matter, I believe the solution to such misrepresentation and fraud should be addressed by Congress. By enacting this bill, Congress would help prevent more victims like Vincent Smith, a Mexican national who has resided in California since 1975. His wife is an American citizen, and they live with their 6 U.S. citizen children in Palmdale, CA. Mr. Smith would likely have received a green card at least two different times during his stay in California. However, in attempting to get legal counsel, Mr. Smith hired someone whom he thought was an attorney, but was not. As a result, Mr. Smith was charged more than $10,000 for processing his immigration paperwork, which was never filed. Mr. Smith now has no legal status and faces removal proceedings. Another victim of immigration fraud is Raul, a Mexican national, who came to the United States in 2000. He also married a U.S. citizen, Loraina, making him eligible to apply for a green card. Raul and his wife went to Jose for legal help. Jose's business card said he had a ``law office'' and that he was an ``immigration specialist.'' But Jose was not a specialist and charged Raul $4,000 to file a frivolous asylum petition. While Raul thought he was going to receive a green card, he was instead placed into removal proceedings. From California to New York, there are hundreds of stories like these. Many immigrants are preyed on because of their fears--others on their hope of realizing the American dream. They are charged exorbitant fees for the filing of frivolous paperwork that clog our immigration courts and keep families and businesses waiting in limbo for years. Law enforcement officials say that many fraudulent ``immigration specialists'' close their businesses or move on to another part of the state or country before they can be held accountable. They can make $100,000 to $200,000 a year and the few who have been caught rarely serve more than a few months in jail. Often victims of such crimes are deported, sending them back to their home countries without accountability for the perpetrator of the fraud. Most recently, hundreds of immigrants were exploited by Victor M. Espinal, who was arrested for allegedly posing as an immigration attorney. Nearly 125 of Mr. Espinal's clients attended the New York City Bar Association's free clinic to address their legal and immigration options. According to prosecutors, Mr. Espinal falsely claimed on his business cards that he was licensed and admitted to the California bar as well as the bar in the Dominican Republic. Organizations such as the Los Angeles Country Bar Association, National Immigration Forum, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and American Bar Association have been documenting this exploitation for many years.
more...
idesign
05-11 04:27 PM
kiwi is looking good ;)
mhtanim
02-11 06:00 PM
Count me in. No FP Notice yet.
more...
jsb
08-13 09:26 PM
EB2 India
PD 5/2004
I-140 approved 6/2006 TSC
I-485 delivered Jul 2, NSC
LUD on I-140 7/28/2007
No receipts or check cashing yet
Hi,
My application reached NSC on july 2nd 10.25 am & the LUD on my I-140 was changed on July 28th still no receipt notice or the cheque got cashed. No idea whatz going????
So I guess the LUD change is nothing relevant to I-485 filing.
Thanks & Regds
MV
PD 5/2004
I-140 approved 6/2006 TSC
I-485 delivered Jul 2, NSC
LUD on I-140 7/28/2007
No receipts or check cashing yet
Hi,
My application reached NSC on july 2nd 10.25 am & the LUD on my I-140 was changed on July 28th still no receipt notice or the cheque got cashed. No idea whatz going????
So I guess the LUD change is nothing relevant to I-485 filing.
Thanks & Regds
MV
2010 fast five cars from movie.
Dhundhun
06-07 04:55 PM
I recently renewed my license in Oklahoma and was surprised to find out that on top of shorter expiration date, now my license has “TEMPORARY” written across it. This is new rule that OK is applying for non-residents and non-citizens. Has any body else gone thru similar experience? I am outraged that now I will be discriminated every where. DL is used on day to day basis and every body will question me, suspect me as to why “TEMPORARY” is written on my DL. Even DL office was not sure when this new rule was implemented, how come police officers, general public will know about it. I feel ashamed to even show my DL now. I’ll get hard time getting loans etc b/c people will think I may move out any time as I am here “Temporarily”
Is it only Oklahoma or other states are doing the same? See the link below from official DPS link for sample of DL.
http://www.dps.state.ok.us/
I saw the pointer. In Oklahoma, lawmakers has taken a stand to mark DL with “TEMPORARY” to all non-citizens. They could have gived DL in different color to make it less harsh. It seems that this “TEMPORARY” marking will be even after getting GC, so this will remain for years and years to come.
As "imneedy" pointed, it is in NJ for the last few years, so we can expect this being done in other states.
Is there any change in layout expected after "real ID(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act)" implementation?
Is it only Oklahoma or other states are doing the same? See the link below from official DPS link for sample of DL.
http://www.dps.state.ok.us/
I saw the pointer. In Oklahoma, lawmakers has taken a stand to mark DL with “TEMPORARY” to all non-citizens. They could have gived DL in different color to make it less harsh. It seems that this “TEMPORARY” marking will be even after getting GC, so this will remain for years and years to come.
As "imneedy" pointed, it is in NJ for the last few years, so we can expect this being done in other states.
Is there any change in layout expected after "real ID(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act)" implementation?
more...
nixstor
06-30 12:56 AM
I was listing to NPR Diane Rim show. Not sure who guests were. But When Diana asked if there is any chance that bill might come back.. He said, no bill won't come back but there is chance that some pieces of immigration may come in seperate pieces in around sep. He did say some bill might come for High skilled.. He gave example of Bill Clinton's health care immigration bill.
Anybody got chance to hear to NPR today?
nothing on immigration today in dr show
Anybody got chance to hear to NPR today?
nothing on immigration today in dr show
hair Fast Five Cars Used Pictures
MatsP
June 1st, 2006, 09:06 AM
Telling other people what lenses to buy (or not to buy) is often hard, for several reasons:
- You probably have a better idea what you want than I do.
- Before you posted here, you probably have made your mind up somewhat.
- My personal preference doesn't really match yours.
- etc, etc.
That's never stopped me from trying to tell people what to do, tho'! ;-)
Now, what lens you should buy depends VERY MUCH on what you want it to do. A 70-300 will be an "OK" lens, it's a budget version - but as you say, it's a lot of money to you, and telling you that you'd get a much better lens if you spend 3x or 5x the money will not really solve a problem.
The things you should consider, however, is if it's going to be good enough for the things you mention:
- Landscapes - a 70-300 lens is probably too long most of the time - your 18-55 is probably a better landscape lens.
- Portrait - Yes, certainly. It's a bit too small an aperture to be a GOOD portrait lens - you want something around f2.0-2.8 - but unless you buy a SPECIFIC lens for portraits, you'd probably not going to get there for anything but A LOT of money.
- Macro . The close-up distance is 5'/1.5m. Depending on the size of insects/flowers and type of photos you want to take, this may be fine or not close enough. However, it's pretty easy to simulate this in the shop, using for instance a coin some such instead of the flower/insect. So if you think that the smallest flower you'd ever want to get a real close-up of is the size of a quarter, lay a quarter on the floor, and try to take a picture of it with the 70-300 lens... Do you get close enough to fill most of the frame, or does it look like a bit lonely with lots of space around it? Can you accept it? Obviously, most insects are slightly smaller than a quarter - except for butterfly's.
There aren't many other options to replace the 70-300, that are reasonably low cost. I'm sure you could find some sigma or other non-Nikon brand lens that is less expensive and do roughly the same, with approximately the same result and the added risk that it's not quite as good at working together with the Nikon camera - at least if it's a Nikon camera and lens you can complain to ONE place and hopefully getting it fixed, rather than being stuck between two companies that neither will take responsibility for your equipment not working... [Although Sigma is more likely to fix a non-compatibility problem than Nikon, of course].
I just noticed that Nikon actually has three different lenses of roughly the same range, a 75-300/4.5-5.6, 70-300 4.0-5.6D ED and 70-300 4.0-5.6G - the latter is a lot cheaper and specifically designed for digital SLR (using smaller lens-elements since the sensor is smaller than the original 35mm film). Not sure if there's much optical different between them. ED should be slightly better optically (and you'd hope so for more than double the price!).
There are a few things that come to mind:
1. If you are SERIOUS about macro photography, you probably want to get a proper macro lens - they get MUCH closer to the subject. There's a Sigma 50/2.8 that costs about $300 which will be a good starting point. A poor mans version is "macro filters", which is basically a screw on lens that goes on the front of the filter screw of your usual lens. They are not quite as good optically, but at least allows you to get close enough to get the subject. The macro lens would also be good as a portrait lens, if you want to get a bigger aperture for that.
2. If you really want to do "big" landscapes, you may need some more wide-angle than the 18-55 gives you. That's obviously not NECESSARY, but for some scenery, it's hard to get far enough away from the subject with a longer lens. Unfortunately, there's really no substitute for dollars here, you'll have to pay for it or not get it, so no easy solution. A Sigma 12-24mm is $689, and that's obviously a lot of money... [Yes, you can get screw on wide-angle lenses too, but if the close-up ones are OK, these aren't - making wide-angle lenses is HARD - magnifying glasses aren't too difficult to make!]
3. You'll almost certainly need a tripod - both for landscapes and macro photography.
Finally: Whilst it's good to consider the purchase, waiting TOO long will make you miss oppurtunities of using the equipment.
Best of luck, and please feel free to ask further questions...
--
Mats
- You probably have a better idea what you want than I do.
- Before you posted here, you probably have made your mind up somewhat.
- My personal preference doesn't really match yours.
- etc, etc.
That's never stopped me from trying to tell people what to do, tho'! ;-)
Now, what lens you should buy depends VERY MUCH on what you want it to do. A 70-300 will be an "OK" lens, it's a budget version - but as you say, it's a lot of money to you, and telling you that you'd get a much better lens if you spend 3x or 5x the money will not really solve a problem.
The things you should consider, however, is if it's going to be good enough for the things you mention:
- Landscapes - a 70-300 lens is probably too long most of the time - your 18-55 is probably a better landscape lens.
- Portrait - Yes, certainly. It's a bit too small an aperture to be a GOOD portrait lens - you want something around f2.0-2.8 - but unless you buy a SPECIFIC lens for portraits, you'd probably not going to get there for anything but A LOT of money.
- Macro . The close-up distance is 5'/1.5m. Depending on the size of insects/flowers and type of photos you want to take, this may be fine or not close enough. However, it's pretty easy to simulate this in the shop, using for instance a coin some such instead of the flower/insect. So if you think that the smallest flower you'd ever want to get a real close-up of is the size of a quarter, lay a quarter on the floor, and try to take a picture of it with the 70-300 lens... Do you get close enough to fill most of the frame, or does it look like a bit lonely with lots of space around it? Can you accept it? Obviously, most insects are slightly smaller than a quarter - except for butterfly's.
There aren't many other options to replace the 70-300, that are reasonably low cost. I'm sure you could find some sigma or other non-Nikon brand lens that is less expensive and do roughly the same, with approximately the same result and the added risk that it's not quite as good at working together with the Nikon camera - at least if it's a Nikon camera and lens you can complain to ONE place and hopefully getting it fixed, rather than being stuck between two companies that neither will take responsibility for your equipment not working... [Although Sigma is more likely to fix a non-compatibility problem than Nikon, of course].
I just noticed that Nikon actually has three different lenses of roughly the same range, a 75-300/4.5-5.6, 70-300 4.0-5.6D ED and 70-300 4.0-5.6G - the latter is a lot cheaper and specifically designed for digital SLR (using smaller lens-elements since the sensor is smaller than the original 35mm film). Not sure if there's much optical different between them. ED should be slightly better optically (and you'd hope so for more than double the price!).
There are a few things that come to mind:
1. If you are SERIOUS about macro photography, you probably want to get a proper macro lens - they get MUCH closer to the subject. There's a Sigma 50/2.8 that costs about $300 which will be a good starting point. A poor mans version is "macro filters", which is basically a screw on lens that goes on the front of the filter screw of your usual lens. They are not quite as good optically, but at least allows you to get close enough to get the subject. The macro lens would also be good as a portrait lens, if you want to get a bigger aperture for that.
2. If you really want to do "big" landscapes, you may need some more wide-angle than the 18-55 gives you. That's obviously not NECESSARY, but for some scenery, it's hard to get far enough away from the subject with a longer lens. Unfortunately, there's really no substitute for dollars here, you'll have to pay for it or not get it, so no easy solution. A Sigma 12-24mm is $689, and that's obviously a lot of money... [Yes, you can get screw on wide-angle lenses too, but if the close-up ones are OK, these aren't - making wide-angle lenses is HARD - magnifying glasses aren't too difficult to make!]
3. You'll almost certainly need a tripod - both for landscapes and macro photography.
Finally: Whilst it's good to consider the purchase, waiting TOO long will make you miss oppurtunities of using the equipment.
Best of luck, and please feel free to ask further questions...
--
Mats
more...
Sushie
08-17 01:48 PM
Hi Everyone,
I'm trying to get my SSN Done. I'm on a dependent H4 Visa and have my H1 approval .
I visited the SSN office with My I797, State ID and Passport : SSN officer straightforwardly rejected as I dont have my EAD card.
The Officer asked me to visit USCIS office to apply for EAD.
Please help me with this situation..Does a H1 get an EAD and then a SSN?
Thanks N Regards,
Sushie
I'm trying to get my SSN Done. I'm on a dependent H4 Visa and have my H1 approval .
I visited the SSN office with My I797, State ID and Passport : SSN officer straightforwardly rejected as I dont have my EAD card.
The Officer asked me to visit USCIS office to apply for EAD.
Please help me with this situation..Does a H1 get an EAD and then a SSN?
Thanks N Regards,
Sushie
hot New “FAST FIVE” Movie Trailer
krishnam70
05-06 11:52 AM
Here is my story, Immigration experts are requested to suggest.......
My H1 started from Oct 05 with Employer A.
Applied Labor in Feb 07, Approved in Feb 07.
I-140 approved in May 07.
Applied I-485 in July 07, still pending.
EAD, AP received in Oct 07 - Expired in Oct 08 (Never Used)
Renewed EAD in Oct 08, valid till Oct 2010.
In Oct 08 H1 expired (3 years), Employer A filed for extension in Sep 08.
The project with Employer A finished on Nov 22, 08. (on H1)
Started new project with Employer B on EAD from Nov 24, 08.
(AC21 was not filed)
Employer A responded an RFE for H1 extension in Jan 09. (3years of Tax
Returns, W2, etc)
Due to miscommunication between me and Employer A, he was notified of my
new job on EAD with Employer B in march 09.
H1 Extension with Employer A got REJECTED on April 26, 09. Reason - End client
contract not submitted. (It was not mentioned in RFE)
Never filed an AC21.
What should I do now ? Will this H1 extension rejection become an
obstable in getting I-485 approved ? Will there be any problem in getting
third extension of EAD if I-485 is still pending ?
Should I appeal this case by submitting all the end client contracts ? But I have
used EAD ...........I have good relation with Employer A and am assuming he will
not revoke my I-140.
Experts please suggest........
Here is my observation
1. Since your H1 with your original employer A was rejected the next step from your employer would be to revoke the H1 petition ( i am not sure if rejection means automatic revocation)
2. You implicitly used AC21 by moving to a new employer and working on an EAD
3. You could have an issue if, employer A revokes your I140. There is some evidence to suggest that lot of such cases are getting NOID and getting rejected. This is based on readings on this forum in other threads.
4. On the contrary if employer A is not withdrawing your I140 which means he is still willing to support your GC ( implicit meaning is that you will work for him in future). You might get an RFE next time you apply for some renewal or just like that on your 485 asking you for 'proof of employment'. In which case you submit the necessary documentation.
The key here really is to make sure your Employer A does not revoke your I140. I know the advocates of AC21 have been arguing in the other threads that it beats the purpose of Ac21 if USCIS is rejecting such cases but its a grey area and certainly a cause for concern.
- cheers
kris
My H1 started from Oct 05 with Employer A.
Applied Labor in Feb 07, Approved in Feb 07.
I-140 approved in May 07.
Applied I-485 in July 07, still pending.
EAD, AP received in Oct 07 - Expired in Oct 08 (Never Used)
Renewed EAD in Oct 08, valid till Oct 2010.
In Oct 08 H1 expired (3 years), Employer A filed for extension in Sep 08.
The project with Employer A finished on Nov 22, 08. (on H1)
Started new project with Employer B on EAD from Nov 24, 08.
(AC21 was not filed)
Employer A responded an RFE for H1 extension in Jan 09. (3years of Tax
Returns, W2, etc)
Due to miscommunication between me and Employer A, he was notified of my
new job on EAD with Employer B in march 09.
H1 Extension with Employer A got REJECTED on April 26, 09. Reason - End client
contract not submitted. (It was not mentioned in RFE)
Never filed an AC21.
What should I do now ? Will this H1 extension rejection become an
obstable in getting I-485 approved ? Will there be any problem in getting
third extension of EAD if I-485 is still pending ?
Should I appeal this case by submitting all the end client contracts ? But I have
used EAD ...........I have good relation with Employer A and am assuming he will
not revoke my I-140.
Experts please suggest........
Here is my observation
1. Since your H1 with your original employer A was rejected the next step from your employer would be to revoke the H1 petition ( i am not sure if rejection means automatic revocation)
2. You implicitly used AC21 by moving to a new employer and working on an EAD
3. You could have an issue if, employer A revokes your I140. There is some evidence to suggest that lot of such cases are getting NOID and getting rejected. This is based on readings on this forum in other threads.
4. On the contrary if employer A is not withdrawing your I140 which means he is still willing to support your GC ( implicit meaning is that you will work for him in future). You might get an RFE next time you apply for some renewal or just like that on your 485 asking you for 'proof of employment'. In which case you submit the necessary documentation.
The key here really is to make sure your Employer A does not revoke your I140. I know the advocates of AC21 have been arguing in the other threads that it beats the purpose of Ac21 if USCIS is rejecting such cases but its a grey area and certainly a cause for concern.
- cheers
kris
more...
house Sport Fast Five Cars (2)
rtarar
02-12 07:21 AM
I am a july 2 nd filer.
No FP yet.
No FP yet.
tattoo fast five cars pic. fast five
sam_austin77
12-18 11:34 PM
Team,
I need advise. Some should respond to my query. It is still unanswered after 190 views. I need to make some quick decisions. Naukri ka sawaal hai!!
Thanks
I need advise. Some should respond to my query. It is still unanswered after 190 views. I need to make some quick decisions. Naukri ka sawaal hai!!
Thanks
more...
pictures 2010 Subaru STi Fast Five Cars
ssingh92
01-03 11:33 AM
I asked a question regarding use of AP and received following response from Embassy of Belgium.
Dear,
As an Indian citizen you do not need a transit visa IF you are only making an airport transit (in other words, if you stay in the airport terminal and you do not have to re-check your luggage in Brussels ). Please contact your airline to make sure your luggage goes directly to your main destination.
Sincerely,
Marijke Janssens
Also Confirmed with JetAirWays NY. They said that the plane stops for 2Hr for security check and there is no check out/in. So I dont need transit visa.
I booked my ticket in JetAirWays (better than Air India).
Dear,
As an Indian citizen you do not need a transit visa IF you are only making an airport transit (in other words, if you stay in the airport terminal and you do not have to re-check your luggage in Brussels ). Please contact your airline to make sure your luggage goes directly to your main destination.
Sincerely,
Marijke Janssens
Also Confirmed with JetAirWays NY. They said that the plane stops for 2Hr for security check and there is no check out/in. So I dont need transit visa.
I booked my ticket in JetAirWays (better than Air India).
dresses fast five cars used. fast five
dreamworld
07-17 04:44 PM
D. JULY EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISA AVAILABILITY
After consulting with Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Visa Office advises readers that Visa Bulletin #107 (dated June 12) should be relied upon as the current July Visa Bulletin for purposes of determining Employment visa number availability, and that Visa Bulletin #108 (dated July 2) is hereby withdrawn.
After consulting with Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Visa Office advises readers that Visa Bulletin #107 (dated June 12) should be relied upon as the current July Visa Bulletin for purposes of determining Employment visa number availability, and that Visa Bulletin #108 (dated July 2) is hereby withdrawn.
more...
makeup the fast five cars. fast five
gchope2k6
03-17 12:16 PM
Hello all,
Me and my wife are planning to buy a home, we are in 485 stage and both are working and have EAD. Do you think there can be issues for getting a joint loan on EAD ? I still have my H1, but my wife never had an H1 before, so she is working on EAD. Do lenders consider EADs for mortgages ? Did you have any issues with this ?
Thank you.
Me and my wife are planning to buy a home, we are in 485 stage and both are working and have EAD. Do you think there can be issues for getting a joint loan on EAD ? I still have my H1, but my wife never had an H1 before, so she is working on EAD. Do lenders consider EADs for mortgages ? Did you have any issues with this ?
Thank you.
girlfriend #39;Fast Five#39; Cars Rolling Into
ImmiLosers
10-06 03:42 PM
HE likes RED though..
How can I check mine?:confused:
And what does 3 red dots on my messages mean?
Thanks
How can I check mine?:confused:
And what does 3 red dots on my messages mean?
Thanks
hairstyles fast five lfa. fast five cars
kumar1
03-20 11:35 AM
I do not think, number of employees matter. I work for a desi company and it has just 2 employees. Labor was breeze and 140 got approved in 4 weeks. Never got any RFE. However, I was in EB-3 despite having 4 years bachelor's degree and 5+ years of experience.
add78
05-01 10:49 AM
I just got my Labor approved (PD - 2/22/2008) . Attorneys are working on filing I-140.
1. Shall I wait for I-140 PP to re-instate or go ahead with normal processing?
2. Is there 'ANY' chance that my PD will be current before I get I-140 approval when filed through normal processing?
Thanks,
Ag
1. Do not delay you i-140 application. Your Labor will expire after 180 days of its approval. You can file I-140 normal now, and if PP goes in effect, you can pay the additional fee and convert it to PP.
2. Doesn't matter as of now. Until USCIS prohibits concurrent filing, you can still file I-485 even if your I-140 is pending, if the dates open up in the summer.
1. Shall I wait for I-140 PP to re-instate or go ahead with normal processing?
2. Is there 'ANY' chance that my PD will be current before I get I-140 approval when filed through normal processing?
Thanks,
Ag
1. Do not delay you i-140 application. Your Labor will expire after 180 days of its approval. You can file I-140 normal now, and if PP goes in effect, you can pay the additional fee and convert it to PP.
2. Doesn't matter as of now. Until USCIS prohibits concurrent filing, you can still file I-485 even if your I-140 is pending, if the dates open up in the summer.
radhagd
01-04 09:52 AM
yes ns007 is right. It's the best advise.
