saileshdude
10-15 02:42 PM
I don't think it has anything to do with H1. I think its just a mistake on their part that they issued this to derivative instead of principal applicant. This is because they are asking for intended permanent employer letter and that terms of LC /I-140 is same. This seems typical of standard employment letter RFE that is issued to the principal applicant.
Is there a way you contact the IO to get confirmation if the RFE is for you or principal applicant? Do keep us updated on how your attorney plans to respond to this.
Is there a way you contact the IO to get confirmation if the RFE is for you or principal applicant? Do keep us updated on how your attorney plans to respond to this.
lebron james wife cheated. including Lebron James,
eb3_nepa
10-13 03:18 PM
Just Kidding - as long as you are wearing decent clothes no one should reject your visa (which otherwise should have been approved) for wearing a jeans or for not wearing formal dress.
But when someone created a thread for this - let me share "one dress" people shouldn't wear.- this is something you would want to avoid, this was told to me 9yrs back when i first came to this country and appeared for Interview first time.
That dress is - "Red Shirt"
Hope this helps !
Are you serious or kidding?
But when someone created a thread for this - let me share "one dress" people shouldn't wear.- this is something you would want to avoid, this was told to me 9yrs back when i first came to this country and appeared for Interview first time.
That dress is - "Red Shirt"
Hope this helps !
Are you serious or kidding?
lebron james wife cheated. lebron james wife pics
aamchimumbai
12-08 12:16 PM
Vik352,
I am in the same situation as yours. I am assuming that this is your first AP application and not renewal, right?
In my case, I am on H1 and my wife is on H4. For both, visa is NOT stamped in our passports. We received a letter from NSC saying that both our AP applications were approved on 10/21/08. I received my approved AP application but we never received hers. We followed up with the NSC and local USCIS office both confirmed that our application were approved. Therefore, she left US to visit India on 11/15/08. Two days later after her departure we received RFE on photos. Weird. Anyways. We did respond her RFE few days ago.
But now the question is can she return with her approved AP, which may have a later date than her departure OR we need to go for H1/H4 stamping. I am not sure what will happen at the POE when we show up with our APs.
Anyone in similar situation?
Thanks.
My wife is not H4, she is working on EAD and we applied her I-485 last July. She has to travel to India for an emegency. We applied for AP last month, have the receipt but it is not approved. Is it okay if she travels to India without AP approval? I will be here and I can take her approved AP when I go there after two months.
I heard that if she travels without AP, her I-485 is considered abonded. Is this true? Can we apply for her H4 (as I am still on H1). Any advice on how to get her back?
Thanks!
I am in the same situation as yours. I am assuming that this is your first AP application and not renewal, right?
In my case, I am on H1 and my wife is on H4. For both, visa is NOT stamped in our passports. We received a letter from NSC saying that both our AP applications were approved on 10/21/08. I received my approved AP application but we never received hers. We followed up with the NSC and local USCIS office both confirmed that our application were approved. Therefore, she left US to visit India on 11/15/08. Two days later after her departure we received RFE on photos. Weird. Anyways. We did respond her RFE few days ago.
But now the question is can she return with her approved AP, which may have a later date than her departure OR we need to go for H1/H4 stamping. I am not sure what will happen at the POE when we show up with our APs.
Anyone in similar situation?
Thanks.
My wife is not H4, she is working on EAD and we applied her I-485 last July. She has to travel to India for an emegency. We applied for AP last month, have the receipt but it is not approved. Is it okay if she travels to India without AP approval? I will be here and I can take her approved AP when I go there after two months.
I heard that if she travels without AP, her I-485 is considered abonded. Is this true? Can we apply for her H4 (as I am still on H1). Any advice on how to get her back?
Thanks!
lebron james wife cheated. lebron james wife. icon lebron james wife; icon lebron james wife. pullman. Mar 9, 08:18 AM. Hi everyone. Ever since I saw a 12quot; PB more than a decade ago
saravanaraj.sathya
07-31 10:08 AM
I would like to know what are the primary reasons why employers revokes approved I-140 after invoking AC21 after 180 days.
a. I think one of the reason is Labor substitution. If they want to use it for someone else. Now that this is eliminated, I think there will be minimal chances of revocation in future.
b. Do big companies like Infy, Wipro do this?
c. They could revoke because of problems between employer and employees...I think we need to be patient and work this out..
Please reply with ur inputs.
a. I think one of the reason is Labor substitution. If they want to use it for someone else. Now that this is eliminated, I think there will be minimal chances of revocation in future.
b. Do big companies like Infy, Wipro do this?
c. They could revoke because of problems between employer and employees...I think we need to be patient and work this out..
Please reply with ur inputs.
more...
lebron james wife cheated. that#39;s been cheated on,
leo2606
07-29 06:20 AM
My son is an U.S citizen (4 years old) and my Attorney successfully filed a petion on behalf of me and mywife.
But that petion is based on EB2 :p
Hi there,
IV seems to be a terrific service to the immigration community. Kudos to the people who work hard to make it work.
Has anyone heard of cases where immigration lawyers have successfully petitioned on behalf of parents of a US baby (way before the age of 18) to become GC holders or citizens?
But that petion is based on EB2 :p
Hi there,
IV seems to be a terrific service to the immigration community. Kudos to the people who work hard to make it work.
Has anyone heard of cases where immigration lawyers have successfully petitioned on behalf of parents of a US baby (way before the age of 18) to become GC holders or citizens?
lebron james wife cheated. pictures of lebron james wife.
Prasad_FL
08-02 04:57 PM
I am in Miami/Miramar area.
more...
lebron james wife cheated. Lebron James Wife Images:
Appu
11-16 02:09 PM
Don't worry about processing dates..
In a brief all centers will move 1 month forward and NSB with move 15 day forward....
The good thing regarding the processing date is we don't have retrogation..
Some tables (e.g., Nebraska, I-140 NIW) show retrogression of processing times. from 6 months to 15 months.
In a brief all centers will move 1 month forward and NSB with move 15 day forward....
The good thing regarding the processing date is we don't have retrogation..
Some tables (e.g., Nebraska, I-140 NIW) show retrogression of processing times. from 6 months to 15 months.
lebron james wife cheated. pictures of lebron james wife.
webm
03-19 03:57 PM
"On a side note, do these Processing dates also retrogress?
--Yes surprisingly it happened for TSC dates during March VB in Feb'08.retrogressed from May 24,2007 to April 10,2007
Keep hope,you should expect to receive GC soon...your PD,RD both passed the criteria for NSC.
HTH,
--Yes surprisingly it happened for TSC dates during March VB in Feb'08.retrogressed from May 24,2007 to April 10,2007
Keep hope,you should expect to receive GC soon...your PD,RD both passed the criteria for NSC.
HTH,
more...
lebron james wife cheated. lebron james wife. lebron james wife savannah
eyeopeners05@yahoo.com
06-02 12:55 PM
July 07 485 filer with pd of July 2003 in EB3.
EAD and AP available and can be used for AC21.
Current H1 valid till 2010 July
Got married after filing 485 and so wife does not have EAD etc and is on H4.
Another company wants me to come to their company using EAD as they dont want to file h1. Can I use EAD under AC21 and switch jobs while my wife is still on H4 ?
Is the EAD/AOS status change applicable only when going in and out of the country ? If we decide to stay in the USA till we get a GC, does it matter if I use EAD to change jobs though my wife is on H4 ?
EAD and AP available and can be used for AC21.
Current H1 valid till 2010 July
Got married after filing 485 and so wife does not have EAD etc and is on H4.
Another company wants me to come to their company using EAD as they dont want to file h1. Can I use EAD under AC21 and switch jobs while my wife is still on H4 ?
Is the EAD/AOS status change applicable only when going in and out of the country ? If we decide to stay in the USA till we get a GC, does it matter if I use EAD to change jobs though my wife is on H4 ?
lebron james wife cheated. +of+lebron+james+wife
prioritydate
07-25 12:11 PM
May be true if they are doing other work, like working on the Family based immigration. But here I am talking about dedicated I-485 application processors. This is just an assumption. I am sure that USCIS have lot of employees than our assumption. I am sure that USCIS is lot more capable, and it they genuinely wants to speedify the process, they could. I sincerely hope that USCIS, with it's new revenue that it is going to get in August, would add workforce to process applications in a timely manner.
more...
lebron james wife cheated. LeBron James Wife
wildcat1313
03-26 02:08 AM
Yesterday, I went for my H1b stamping but was issued a 221G. I had all documents that the VO asked for.
1. Client Letter with detailed job descriptions.
2. Vendor Letter with detailed job requirements and skillsets required
3. Contract between my company & Vendor.
4. Work-Order from client to vendor.
5. All W2/pay Slips
6. Company Tax return for last 2 years.
7. Unemployment wage report
8. Notarized copy of all employees with location, salary, start date , end date.
9. Copy of filing with USCIS.
10. All timesheets esablishing employee/employer relationship as well as billing timesheets
VO refused the visa saying he wants to see the contract between employer & end client. Vendor is saying they cannot provide it because of legal issues but are willing to provide a detailed letter stating the same.
I have been with the same employer for last 7 years and never been on bench with I-140 approved. Have worked for same client earlier for 4 years, took a break as I was bored, worked for another client for a year, came back and have been working there for last 2 years now. Client is very co-operative and is willing to help in anyway they can as they need my services.
What are my chances of getting tbe visa without the original contract?
I had to travel to India because of a family emergency. My family is in US as kids are in school. I would really appreciate if you can answer.
1. Client Letter with detailed job descriptions.
2. Vendor Letter with detailed job requirements and skillsets required
3. Contract between my company & Vendor.
4. Work-Order from client to vendor.
5. All W2/pay Slips
6. Company Tax return for last 2 years.
7. Unemployment wage report
8. Notarized copy of all employees with location, salary, start date , end date.
9. Copy of filing with USCIS.
10. All timesheets esablishing employee/employer relationship as well as billing timesheets
VO refused the visa saying he wants to see the contract between employer & end client. Vendor is saying they cannot provide it because of legal issues but are willing to provide a detailed letter stating the same.
I have been with the same employer for last 7 years and never been on bench with I-140 approved. Have worked for same client earlier for 4 years, took a break as I was bored, worked for another client for a year, came back and have been working there for last 2 years now. Client is very co-operative and is willing to help in anyway they can as they need my services.
What are my chances of getting tbe visa without the original contract?
I had to travel to India because of a family emergency. My family is in US as kids are in school. I would really appreciate if you can answer.
lebron james wife cheated. What you that lebron about me,
siddar
12-03 05:51 PM
Candidate should be physically present in USA, on the date of AP approval. Otherwise, that AP is not valid. When the candidate try to enter US, the IO will verify this information and may permit accordingly.
I-485 application considers abandoned, if a candidate leaves US without any valid Visa to re-enter. Remember, H1 / H4 cannot be stamped after I-485 approval.
I'm a layman like you, please consult an attorney.
I-485 application considers abandoned, if a candidate leaves US without any valid Visa to re-enter. Remember, H1 / H4 cannot be stamped after I-485 approval.
I'm a layman like you, please consult an attorney.
more...
lebron james wife cheated. lebron james wife name,
mrdelhiite
08-07 10:57 AM
Though its not mentioned it is good file I-134. You are not eligible for I-864.
Yes u are right about I-864. Any employement based green card like ours ( EB2/EB3) should not file it. Here is the text from the I864 form -->
Employment-based preference immigrants in cases onlywhen a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident relativefiled the immigrant visa petition or such relative has asignificant ownership interest (five percent or more) in theentity that filed the petition.
Thanks a ton for your help guys. :-)
-M
Yes u are right about I-864. Any employement based green card like ours ( EB2/EB3) should not file it. Here is the text from the I864 form -->
Employment-based preference immigrants in cases onlywhen a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident relativefiled the immigrant visa petition or such relative has asignificant ownership interest (five percent or more) in theentity that filed the petition.
Thanks a ton for your help guys. :-)
-M
lebron james wife cheated. LeBron James Wife
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
lebron james wife cheated. Lebron+james+wife+name
BMS1
08-21 09:23 AM
It is my turn to receive the "Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident" today. My depenedents are yet to receive this mail. This forum, Immigration-law, Immigration portal by Rajiv Khanna and many other immigration lawyers' websites like Murthy's etc were very useful to understand the immigration laws.
I did everything myself (EB2-NIW - India) - I140, I485, AP and EAD and my PD (I140 RD) and I485 RD are 09-29-2005.
I did make a one time conribution of $100.00 to IV.
Thanks a lot. All the best to all.
I did everything myself (EB2-NIW - India) - I140, I485, AP and EAD and my PD (I140 RD) and I485 RD are 09-29-2005.
I did make a one time conribution of $100.00 to IV.
Thanks a lot. All the best to all.
lebron james wife cheated. wife, or that Jeff McInnis had been seeing Phil Ford#39;s wife. delonte west wife lebron james. Lebron James On Delonte West on WN Network delivers the latest
gee_see
10-19 10:08 AM
My question is can the salary go down ? and what are the risks?. I think salary increase is not an issue. What about salary decrease?
Thanks
Thanks
more...
lebron james wife cheated. LeBron James as a Child
Maverick_2008
02-22 09:32 PM
Even TSC is getting s..l..o..w now for 140.
Maverick_2008
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
TSC
485: went from May 24 to April 10, 2007 :(
140: June 23, 2007
NSC
485: July 30, 3007
140: Jan 22, 2007
Maverick_2008
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
TSC
485: went from May 24 to April 10, 2007 :(
140: June 23, 2007
NSC
485: July 30, 3007
140: Jan 22, 2007
lebron james wife cheated. Bey is said to have cheated
senthil1
06-11 05:35 PM
There may be two observations in this.
1. They may try to bring CIR one more time and pass in Senate or
2.They will make alive CIR talks till this year end. This will make sure that other piece meal bills like Skil, Agricultural jobs bill will not be brought for debate till CIR is alive
Second case is the best bet for numbersusa, alipac etc.
1. They may try to bring CIR one more time and pass in Senate or
2.They will make alive CIR talks till this year end. This will make sure that other piece meal bills like Skil, Agricultural jobs bill will not be brought for debate till CIR is alive
Second case is the best bet for numbersusa, alipac etc.
lebron james wife cheated. playing Lebron james wife
minimalist
08-13 02:15 PM
Come on guys, give him a break.
His analysis was accurate, if any of you came across the September 08 bulletin, EB2 advanced by two months. Which equates to what vldrao analyzed in the past, the use of 20,000 visas in September.
We all IV members stand united and lets not adverse someone on the basis of his righteousness. Even if a IV member is wrong, let's all correct him.
Thanks
No malicious intent. All praise for VLDRao.
His analysis was accurate, if any of you came across the September 08 bulletin, EB2 advanced by two months. Which equates to what vldrao analyzed in the past, the use of 20,000 visas in September.
We all IV members stand united and lets not adverse someone on the basis of his righteousness. Even if a IV member is wrong, let's all correct him.
Thanks
No malicious intent. All praise for VLDRao.
mhtanim
06-10 02:40 AM
Wow.. one should wonder why USCIS wants its' own documents. Don't they have any way to track someone's immigration records in their system?
Anyway, as somebody else has mentioned - you should consult with an experienced attorney.
Anyway, as somebody else has mentioned - you should consult with an experienced attorney.
pappu
03-17 03:53 PM
Some recent news from USCIS.
======================================
H-1B Cap Exemptions Based on Relation or Affiliation
Released: March 16, 2011
USCIS - H-1B Cap Exemptions Based on Relation or Affiliation (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=2eb0652c630ce210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
WASHINGTON— U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today, in response to recent stakeholder feedback, that it is currently reviewing its policy on H-1B cap exemptions for non-profit entities that are related to or affiliated with an institution of higher education. Until further guidance is issued, USCIS is temporarily applying interim procedures to H-1B non-profit entity petitions filed with the agency seeking an exemption from the statutory H-1B numerical cap based on an affiliation with or relation to an institution of higher education.
Effective immediately, during this interim period USCIS will give deference to prior determinations made since June 6, 2006, that a non-profit entity is related to or affiliated with an institution of higher education – absent any significant change in circumstances or clear error in the prior adjudication – and, therefore, exempt from the H-1B statutory cap. However, the burden remains on the petitioner to show that its organization previously received approvals of its request for H-1B cap exemption as a non-profit entity that is related to or affiliated with an institution of higher education.
Petitioners may satisfy this burden by providing USCIS with evidence such as a copy of the previously approved cap-exempt petition (i.e. Form I-129 and pertinent attachments) and the previously issued applicable I-797 approval notice issued by USCIS since June 6, 2006, and any documentation that was submitted in support of the claimed cap exemption. Furthermore, USCIS suggests that petitioners include a statement attesting that their organization was approved as cap-exempt since June 6, 2006.
USCIS emphasizes that these measures will only remain in place on an interim basis. USCIS will engage the public on any forthcoming guidance.
The H-1B is a nonimmigrant visa that allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations. Unless determined to be exempt, H-1B petitions are subject to either the 65,000 statutory cap or the 20,000 statutory visa cap exemption. By statute, H-1B visas are subject to an annual numerical limit, or cap, of 65,000 visas each fiscal year. The first 20,000 petitions for these visas filed on behalf of individuals with U.S. master’s degrees or higher are exempt from this cap.
======================================
H-1B Cap Exemptions Based on Relation or Affiliation
Released: March 16, 2011
USCIS - H-1B Cap Exemptions Based on Relation or Affiliation (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=2eb0652c630ce210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
WASHINGTON— U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today, in response to recent stakeholder feedback, that it is currently reviewing its policy on H-1B cap exemptions for non-profit entities that are related to or affiliated with an institution of higher education. Until further guidance is issued, USCIS is temporarily applying interim procedures to H-1B non-profit entity petitions filed with the agency seeking an exemption from the statutory H-1B numerical cap based on an affiliation with or relation to an institution of higher education.
Effective immediately, during this interim period USCIS will give deference to prior determinations made since June 6, 2006, that a non-profit entity is related to or affiliated with an institution of higher education – absent any significant change in circumstances or clear error in the prior adjudication – and, therefore, exempt from the H-1B statutory cap. However, the burden remains on the petitioner to show that its organization previously received approvals of its request for H-1B cap exemption as a non-profit entity that is related to or affiliated with an institution of higher education.
Petitioners may satisfy this burden by providing USCIS with evidence such as a copy of the previously approved cap-exempt petition (i.e. Form I-129 and pertinent attachments) and the previously issued applicable I-797 approval notice issued by USCIS since June 6, 2006, and any documentation that was submitted in support of the claimed cap exemption. Furthermore, USCIS suggests that petitioners include a statement attesting that their organization was approved as cap-exempt since June 6, 2006.
USCIS emphasizes that these measures will only remain in place on an interim basis. USCIS will engage the public on any forthcoming guidance.
The H-1B is a nonimmigrant visa that allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations. Unless determined to be exempt, H-1B petitions are subject to either the 65,000 statutory cap or the 20,000 statutory visa cap exemption. By statute, H-1B visas are subject to an annual numerical limit, or cap, of 65,000 visas each fiscal year. The first 20,000 petitions for these visas filed on behalf of individuals with U.S. master’s degrees or higher are exempt from this cap.
No comments:
Post a Comment