kurtz_wolfgang
08-15 01:23 PM
I would suggest Jonty, not to waste your time. I posted the question in general. It wasn't specific to you. If anybody is free and feels like, they can answer.:rolleyes::cool::cool::cool:
wallpaper wallpapers of love quotes.
ssnd03
03-04 02:57 PM
Finally some sanity on FBI Namecheck from the DHS head honcho Michael Chertoff. He is now saying things which everybody has been screaming for the last three four years. I have highlighted those. But it does take that long for wheels to turn even in the most liberal democracy.
Question: Mr. Secretary, you had, at the very beginning, laid out some great progress that's been made in terms of preventing bad people from getting in. And part of the Homeland Security mission, which is a challenging one, is that while you are responsible for protecting against bad things, you're also responsible for facilitating good things. And be that the flow of people, in this case, USCIS is responsible for that for the department. They've begun a $3.5 billion transformation. And I'm hoping you could speak to that in two ways. What's your concept of success in that, in terms of the national security part of it, the operational excellence part of it, and customer service part of it?
Secretary Chertoff: Three -- two main things. One is, we have to move from a paper-based system to a totally electronically-based system. We still have too much paper, and it's hard to track, it's hard to manage, and it takes a lot of time.
The second piece is, I want to rebuild -- re-engineer the system in a couple of ways. One is, and the most urgent, is to deal with the background check problem. It just takes way too long for the Bureau to complete background checks for a small but a significant number of people. The majority of people -- you know, if the name doesn't pop up on anything in the -- it's pretty quick. But for a small number -- but still significant, and certainly to the individual, significant -- if their name crops up and it's an older case, and it's in a file somewhere, someone has got to hunt it down. And to be perfectly honest, that is not a top priority job for an agent, is to go through an old paper record sitting in a warehouse.
Looking forward as we go electronically, and as the Bureau goes electronically, that problem will diminish. But looking backwards we have to re-engineer the system to be a little tougher. And one of the things we did, for example, with the green cards was we said, for background checks that took longer than six months, we would give you a green card, and then if it turned out the background check later revealed a problem, we would take the green card away.
Now why did we do that -- because I got criticized, �Oh, you're sacrificing national security.� Here's why. First of all, if you haven't been -- if it's going to take longer than six months, it's clear that you're not on a Terrorist Watch List, you haven't been convicted of a crime, you haven't been indicted for a crime. In other words, most of the major things you would worry about -- it's a very easy thing to determine whether you've had a problem or not. What you're not going to get in that six months is the guy whose name came up in a file somewhere. And the vast majority of those are benign mentions.
Secondly, you're here. If you're going to do something bad, you're still here legally. The green card -- it's not like we're bringing you in from overseas. So if you think about it logically, the risk of giving you the green card with the understanding that it can be pulled away if something turns up, it's a minimal risk. It's a minimal, marginal risk. Whereas the customer service value of giving someone the green card is high. That's an example of trying to be more cost-benefit in the system.
See
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=24818
Question: Mr. Secretary, you had, at the very beginning, laid out some great progress that's been made in terms of preventing bad people from getting in. And part of the Homeland Security mission, which is a challenging one, is that while you are responsible for protecting against bad things, you're also responsible for facilitating good things. And be that the flow of people, in this case, USCIS is responsible for that for the department. They've begun a $3.5 billion transformation. And I'm hoping you could speak to that in two ways. What's your concept of success in that, in terms of the national security part of it, the operational excellence part of it, and customer service part of it?
Secretary Chertoff: Three -- two main things. One is, we have to move from a paper-based system to a totally electronically-based system. We still have too much paper, and it's hard to track, it's hard to manage, and it takes a lot of time.
The second piece is, I want to rebuild -- re-engineer the system in a couple of ways. One is, and the most urgent, is to deal with the background check problem. It just takes way too long for the Bureau to complete background checks for a small but a significant number of people. The majority of people -- you know, if the name doesn't pop up on anything in the -- it's pretty quick. But for a small number -- but still significant, and certainly to the individual, significant -- if their name crops up and it's an older case, and it's in a file somewhere, someone has got to hunt it down. And to be perfectly honest, that is not a top priority job for an agent, is to go through an old paper record sitting in a warehouse.
Looking forward as we go electronically, and as the Bureau goes electronically, that problem will diminish. But looking backwards we have to re-engineer the system to be a little tougher. And one of the things we did, for example, with the green cards was we said, for background checks that took longer than six months, we would give you a green card, and then if it turned out the background check later revealed a problem, we would take the green card away.
Now why did we do that -- because I got criticized, �Oh, you're sacrificing national security.� Here's why. First of all, if you haven't been -- if it's going to take longer than six months, it's clear that you're not on a Terrorist Watch List, you haven't been convicted of a crime, you haven't been indicted for a crime. In other words, most of the major things you would worry about -- it's a very easy thing to determine whether you've had a problem or not. What you're not going to get in that six months is the guy whose name came up in a file somewhere. And the vast majority of those are benign mentions.
Secondly, you're here. If you're going to do something bad, you're still here legally. The green card -- it's not like we're bringing you in from overseas. So if you think about it logically, the risk of giving you the green card with the understanding that it can be pulled away if something turns up, it's a minimal risk. It's a minimal, marginal risk. Whereas the customer service value of giving someone the green card is high. That's an example of trying to be more cost-benefit in the system.
See
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=24818
pponakan
05-31 02:31 PM
Contributed $350 so far. Will contribute another $100 today.
2011 sad love quotes wallpapers.
vybe3142
07-25 12:59 PM
Congratulations on you new job. Like others have suggested - make sure you do a good job of sending our AC21 docs - now that you know that your employer is going to revoke I140. Also be ready for any RFE / NOID and prepare your documentation before hand.
Good luck.
Thanks, ..
What kind of documentation do I need to keep handy in case of RFE?
Good luck.
Thanks, ..
What kind of documentation do I need to keep handy in case of RFE?
more...
lacrossegc
07-30 03:33 PM
When do you get FP notices?
jaggu bhai
08-10 11:58 AM
A person holding H-4 can attend college in the U.S. In fact, some colleges offer in-state tuition for H-4 students. Check Brooklyn College for instance. INA does not specifically disallow from attending college of H-4 nor H-1 and colleges are aware of this. So if your wife is doing this only because she would like to pursue degree, I would suggest she explores the options and if possible remains on H-4, which is a dual intent status.
Best Wishes,
Thanks glus
down the line we wanted to use the benefits of F1.
thats why we r planning to change!
tx
Best Wishes,
Thanks glus
down the line we wanted to use the benefits of F1.
thats why we r planning to change!
tx
more...
vasa
07-05 10:48 PM
Tell the employer you'll pay for the premium but include you in the company's group insurance.even a normal delivery costs can run into 10K plus the baby has additional costs etc . Did you have group insurance from a previous company?you can continuethat on cobra..its expensive though.good luck
2010 Wallpaper Desktop Love Quotes.
.jpg "wallpapers of love quotes. sad")
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
.jpg "love quotes wallpapers. free")
nik.patelc
10-23 06:36 PM
I m on h1b and my I485 application is pending. Also i have recieved EAD valid till Sept 2010. I m on H1 Visa status with current company. if i get laid off, how do i move my status from H1 to EAD after layoff?
I m planning to take 2 or 3 months break if i get layoff and then plan to find another job on EAD. Is there any problem to assume ,my status will be automatically change to EAD if i get layoff while on h1.
I m planning to take 2 or 3 months break if i get layoff and then plan to find another job on EAD. Is there any problem to assume ,my status will be automatically change to EAD if i get layoff while on h1.
hair wallpapers of love quotes.
ak_manu
10-24 11:40 AM
Hello,
I have a baby in US. We have applied for birth certificate and ssn. we plan to travel to india in December. I plan to apply for US passport once i receive DOB and ssn certificates. I have following Q's -
If baby has to travel to india, do i need PIO or OCI?
What is difference b/w two?
Can i simultanesously apply for PIO/OCI along with US passport?
What documents would I need to apply PIO/OCI along and US passport?
How long does everything take?
Thanks,
ak_manu
I have a baby in US. We have applied for birth certificate and ssn. we plan to travel to india in December. I plan to apply for US passport once i receive DOB and ssn certificates. I have following Q's -
If baby has to travel to india, do i need PIO or OCI?
What is difference b/w two?
Can i simultanesously apply for PIO/OCI along with US passport?
What documents would I need to apply PIO/OCI along and US passport?
How long does everything take?
Thanks,
ak_manu
more...
greenguru
03-31 06:37 PM
Here is the process for porting
1. Apply for EB2
2. Apply for I-140 under EB-2. Attached your old EB3 I-140 and request for a porting.
3. If you applied for 485 already then mention the A# so your 485 will get approved automatically.
Hope this helps.
CHeers, GG
1. Apply for EB2
2. Apply for I-140 under EB-2. Attached your old EB3 I-140 and request for a porting.
3. If you applied for 485 already then mention the A# so your 485 will get approved automatically.
Hope this helps.
CHeers, GG
hot love quotes wallpapers. love
cr52401
03-21 08:57 AM
I am in same situation and try to file next month. Can you tell me how long it took for you to get the second approval?
I also sent you a PM as well.
Thank you.
You can only file a second LC for the same employee at the same company, if the new position is "substantially different" from the old position. [ I am happy to report, that I just received my PERM approval for doing exactly this :) ]
If your LC was filed via PERM and approved, you do not need to refile just because you lost the receipt. If you're filing an H1-B renewal, a screen shot / printout of the PERM app, showing the case #, is sufficient. If you're filing an I-140, there's a check box on the I-140 to indicate that USCIS should request a PERM approval receipt directly from DoL.
- gs
I also sent you a PM as well.
Thank you.
You can only file a second LC for the same employee at the same company, if the new position is "substantially different" from the old position. [ I am happy to report, that I just received my PERM approval for doing exactly this :) ]
If your LC was filed via PERM and approved, you do not need to refile just because you lost the receipt. If you're filing an H1-B renewal, a screen shot / printout of the PERM app, showing the case #, is sufficient. If you're filing an I-140, there's a check box on the I-140 to indicate that USCIS should request a PERM approval receipt directly from DoL.
- gs
more...
house sad love quotes wallpapers.
nrakkati
08-15 12:05 PM
I thought this will give some hope to you.
Mine reached USCIS on July-3rd around 6:00am. All 6 (2x485, 2xAP, 2xEAD) checks were cached today.
Hope yours on the way too...
Mine reached USCIS on July-3rd around 6:00am. All 6 (2x485, 2xAP, 2xEAD) checks were cached today.
Hope yours on the way too...
tattoo wallpaper love quotes. love
capriol
07-06 10:30 AM
I will be returning from India soon by KLM (via the Delhi-Amsterdam-U.S route), with an AP, 485 pending receipt, an H1B status BUT with an expired H1B visa on your passport? Given that I have these documents, I have decided not to get my H1B visa re-stamped in India. But now, I am getting a little panicked as the time is nearing for the following reasons (and these related questions). Will you please answer them for me:
(1) If I have the AP documents, the 485 pending receipt, and my HIB paperwork with me (but not the H1B visa stamped in my passport), will I be able to re-enter the U.S? Will there be any problems at the port of entry?
(2) At Delhi and at Amsterdam, will the immigraiton folks give me trouble if they see an expired HIB visa on my passport? Can they refuse to let me board the plane? Have any of you traveling via Delhi and Amstredam experienced any problems from the immigration folks?
Please share your experiences. Thanks a lot.[/QUOTE]
(1) If I have the AP documents, the 485 pending receipt, and my HIB paperwork with me (but not the H1B visa stamped in my passport), will I be able to re-enter the U.S? Will there be any problems at the port of entry?
(2) At Delhi and at Amsterdam, will the immigraiton folks give me trouble if they see an expired HIB visa on my passport? Can they refuse to let me board the plane? Have any of you traveling via Delhi and Amstredam experienced any problems from the immigration folks?
Please share your experiences. Thanks a lot.[/QUOTE]
more...
pictures wallpapers of love quotes.
LookingForGC
01-26 10:26 PM
Congrats! Enjoy the freedom.
dresses love wallpapers quotes. love
murali77
06-16 01:39 AM
Thanks for the reply.
How difficult is to have name changed in SSN ?
and how long does it take.
Thanks.
Murali
How difficult is to have name changed in SSN ?
and how long does it take.
Thanks.
Murali
more...
makeup love quotes wallpapers. free
arnab221
03-18 10:32 AM
Hello :
Does the core team who have their boots in Washington have any knowledge of the date when the CIR will be introduced by Mr Kennedy . Days have turned to weeks then to months and we have been just hearing stories of the bill getting introduced "Next Week ".The press is spilling gallons of ink and the onliners are creating Gigabytes of forum data on Immigration Legislation and its outcomes, but nothing seems to come out of Capitol Hill , they are just going around in circles .Are they actually going to do something this year or is it just another eyewash ?
Does the core team who have their boots in Washington have any knowledge of the date when the CIR will be introduced by Mr Kennedy . Days have turned to weeks then to months and we have been just hearing stories of the bill getting introduced "Next Week ".The press is spilling gallons of ink and the onliners are creating Gigabytes of forum data on Immigration Legislation and its outcomes, but nothing seems to come out of Capitol Hill , they are just going around in circles .Are they actually going to do something this year or is it just another eyewash ?
girlfriend wallpaper desktop love quotes.
meridiani.planum
06-01 08:01 PM
I just happened to see a copy of my labor approval. My current salary is less than the salary mentioned in labor approval. Do you know whether it is legally valid?. My salary is as per the LCA for H1.
its fine. Your salary should match the LCA salary. The LC salary is for 'future job'. the only place it might come into play is if your employer is very small, and there are ability-to-pay issues (here, if your current salary matches LC salary then its easier to say that employer has ability to pay).
its fine. Your salary should match the LCA salary. The LC salary is for 'future job'. the only place it might come into play is if your employer is very small, and there are ability-to-pay issues (here, if your current salary matches LC salary then its easier to say that employer has ability to pay).
hairstyles love quotes and wallpapers
kaisersose
07-26 03:20 PM
Can one change status without AOS receipt. I saw I 539 (change of status) form and It is written to gove more specifics if you applied for permanent residency
Just mention you applied for 485 and you are waiting a receipt. Use the bright colored paper option they recommended for such situations.
Just mention you applied for 485 and you are waiting a receipt. Use the bright colored paper option they recommended for such situations.
heywhat
10-24 01:37 PM
I gave you green .. be happy .. and keep helping others
Someone gave me a red dot for this post. Why?? Now folks think twice before trying to help someone on this forum, you might get a negative reputation.
Someone gave me a red dot for this post. Why?? Now folks think twice before trying to help someone on this forum, you might get a negative reputation.
vaishalikumar
08-05 09:33 PM
Who gets the AP (Advance parole) document from USCIS , candidate or lawyer who filed it ?
No comments:
Post a Comment