gimme_GC2006
08-16 06:27 PM
In Dubai when you come back you have to show your AP and supporting docs if they ask you to. I came back this July 18th.
I had absolutely no problems, it's all smooth as long as you carry all the supporting docs. I did have a shitty experience at JFK -- there are few morons at the POE you can't do much about.
What are the supporting docs along with AP? I will be travelling by Emirates via Dubai in Novemeber.
TIA
I had absolutely no problems, it's all smooth as long as you carry all the supporting docs. I did have a shitty experience at JFK -- there are few morons at the POE you can't do much about.
What are the supporting docs along with AP? I will be travelling by Emirates via Dubai in Novemeber.
TIA
wallpaper Helena Bonham Carter,
coopheal
12-01 07:20 PM
Contributed $100 for Dec.
Transaction ID: 8P72***********
Transaction ID: 8P72***********
intheyan
08-13 09:07 PM
I feel the name check rule is just for our satisfaction and it is not helping most of the name check clearence.
2011 In addition to Helena Bonham
raysaikat
12-19 08:16 PM
Thank you for replying.
I believe when I was young I entered with family visit visa, then I re-entered the country using a re entry visa. I assume both has expired for awhile now, although my I 94 doesn't state an expiration date, it stats "ans or status" Could you explain what that means?
You are probably reading the notation wrong - it is probably "and/or status".
In US immigration, there is a notion of "status" which basically means you do/live in US the way you promised the immigration officer at the time of entry. If you were entered as an F-1 student, then you remain a student in good standing; if you were entered as H1-B, you remain gainfully employed in the position (or a similar one) for which the H1-B was issued, etc.
The second notion is "unlawful presence", which basically means you are staying in US beyond the time the immigration officer allowed you to -- i.e., the date on I-94.
So it is possible to be out-of-status, but not unlawfully present (i.e., someone who entered on H1-B VISA stopped working even though his/her I-94 was valid for 6 more months).
If you remain in US "unlawfully" (i.e., after the date written on your I-94) for more than 6 months but less than 1 year, you get a 3 year ban on reentering US. If you stay in US unlawfully for more than 1 year, then you get a 10 year ban on reentering.
In your case, your I-94 seems to say the stay was valid until a date "X" and/or until you were in status. I am assuming that there is a date on I-94 even though you did not specify one. I am not familiar with that notation, so I am guessing. If the guess is correct, then that would mean that you started accruing "unlawful presence" from the date you became out-of-status and you were "old enough". As far as I remember, the "old enough" is 18 years old, but I could be wrong and it could be 21 years old.
To determine when you became out of status, you need to know what was the required status at the last entry. If your sole status was parolee (i.e., you used advanced parole based on your submitted I-485), then you became out-of-status whenever the I-485 was rejected. As far as I know, the appeals process allows you to live in US, but if the appeal fails, as it was your case, the date when the status became invalid does not advance.
So if you have no other VISA status as a dependent, then you are out-of-status. Assuming the I-94 expired long back, and that USCIS starts counting unlawful presence from your 18th birthday, then you have accrued unlawful days equal to your age in days minus 6574 days (counting leap-years ;) ).
You can apply for a college, and the college may give you I-20, based on which you can get an F-1 VISA. However, you would have to go to your "home country" to get the F-1 VISA stamp on your passport (and they may ban you depending on the number of days you were unlawfully present). Basically, the only way I know of for you to get a legal immigration status is to go out of the country and get back with a legal visa (and of course, risk being banned, or denied VISA for any other reason).
Your case is complex enough that you must seek advice from an immigration attorney before making any decision.
I believe when I was young I entered with family visit visa, then I re-entered the country using a re entry visa. I assume both has expired for awhile now, although my I 94 doesn't state an expiration date, it stats "ans or status" Could you explain what that means?
You are probably reading the notation wrong - it is probably "and/or status".
In US immigration, there is a notion of "status" which basically means you do/live in US the way you promised the immigration officer at the time of entry. If you were entered as an F-1 student, then you remain a student in good standing; if you were entered as H1-B, you remain gainfully employed in the position (or a similar one) for which the H1-B was issued, etc.
The second notion is "unlawful presence", which basically means you are staying in US beyond the time the immigration officer allowed you to -- i.e., the date on I-94.
So it is possible to be out-of-status, but not unlawfully present (i.e., someone who entered on H1-B VISA stopped working even though his/her I-94 was valid for 6 more months).
If you remain in US "unlawfully" (i.e., after the date written on your I-94) for more than 6 months but less than 1 year, you get a 3 year ban on reentering US. If you stay in US unlawfully for more than 1 year, then you get a 10 year ban on reentering.
In your case, your I-94 seems to say the stay was valid until a date "X" and/or until you were in status. I am assuming that there is a date on I-94 even though you did not specify one. I am not familiar with that notation, so I am guessing. If the guess is correct, then that would mean that you started accruing "unlawful presence" from the date you became out-of-status and you were "old enough". As far as I remember, the "old enough" is 18 years old, but I could be wrong and it could be 21 years old.
To determine when you became out of status, you need to know what was the required status at the last entry. If your sole status was parolee (i.e., you used advanced parole based on your submitted I-485), then you became out-of-status whenever the I-485 was rejected. As far as I know, the appeals process allows you to live in US, but if the appeal fails, as it was your case, the date when the status became invalid does not advance.
So if you have no other VISA status as a dependent, then you are out-of-status. Assuming the I-94 expired long back, and that USCIS starts counting unlawful presence from your 18th birthday, then you have accrued unlawful days equal to your age in days minus 6574 days (counting leap-years ;) ).
You can apply for a college, and the college may give you I-20, based on which you can get an F-1 VISA. However, you would have to go to your "home country" to get the F-1 VISA stamp on your passport (and they may ban you depending on the number of days you were unlawfully present). Basically, the only way I know of for you to get a legal immigration status is to go out of the country and get back with a legal visa (and of course, risk being banned, or denied VISA for any other reason).
Your case is complex enough that you must seek advice from an immigration attorney before making any decision.
more...
snathan
09-23 10:57 PM
First of all thanks for your valuable feedback.
FYI: I am a derivative I-485 applicant (my spouce is a primary 485 applicant).
So, Did you mean I can join an employer on EAD and file for green card processing (labor cert, 140, and 485) as a primary applicant with my prospective employer?
Thanks,
You can use the EAD to start working. Then start the GC process. But I dont think you can caputre the 2003 EB3 PD for your EB2. Only your spouse can port the PD if he starts his GC in EB2. I believe you can not port your spouse's PD for your GC. So whats the use of doing this. You will be having EB2 PD sometime in 2010 as it takes 3-6 months time to file the PERM.
FYI: I am a derivative I-485 applicant (my spouce is a primary 485 applicant).
So, Did you mean I can join an employer on EAD and file for green card processing (labor cert, 140, and 485) as a primary applicant with my prospective employer?
Thanks,
You can use the EAD to start working. Then start the GC process. But I dont think you can caputre the 2003 EB3 PD for your EB2. Only your spouse can port the PD if he starts his GC in EB2. I believe you can not port your spouse's PD for your GC. So whats the use of doing this. You will be having EB2 PD sometime in 2010 as it takes 3-6 months time to file the PERM.
.jpg "[Helena+Bonham+Carter+in+fight")
gcnotfiledyet
03-16 05:54 PM
My company informed me today that, when spouse is added to the insurence, the insurence will start from day 1 of next month. My wife will be comming in the middle of month. How to cover this gap with insurence...?? Any suggestions...????
If you show them marriage certificate they should be able to backdate the dates of coverage. That is what happened in my case. Other option is to shop for private insurance for few days. You will pay premium. Get some cheaper insurance then you run risk of lot of loopholes in coverage. Get travel insurance from companies in India. There are plenty and you can find discussion on this forum. Check with pre existing condition clause with your insurance company even if the coverage starts from 1st.
Other option is to have your wife come after 1st of month or pray to God that she doesn't fall sick, just kidding.
If you show them marriage certificate they should be able to backdate the dates of coverage. That is what happened in my case. Other option is to shop for private insurance for few days. You will pay premium. Get some cheaper insurance then you run risk of lot of loopholes in coverage. Get travel insurance from companies in India. There are plenty and you can find discussion on this forum. Check with pre existing condition clause with your insurance company even if the coverage starts from 1st.
Other option is to have your wife come after 1st of month or pray to God that she doesn't fall sick, just kidding.
more...
singam
12-23 08:26 PM
Yes.
2010 Helena Bonham Carter: #39;The
cvk90
07-05 11:46 AM
Hello,
I am on L1 B visa here for last 2.5 years working for MNC (Fortune 200). The benefits folks recently contacted me and told me that I was not allowed to participate in US retirement plans (401K) due to L1 visa restrictions, and that they are returning all my previous contributions and earnings back to me as an income. They said that they allowed to participate me for past 2.5 years by mistake.
My question is if this is true ? Are there other folks on L1 who are participating in 401 K plans ? what are my options here ?
PLEASE HELP.
I am on L1 B visa here for last 2.5 years working for MNC (Fortune 200). The benefits folks recently contacted me and told me that I was not allowed to participate in US retirement plans (401K) due to L1 visa restrictions, and that they are returning all my previous contributions and earnings back to me as an income. They said that they allowed to participate me for past 2.5 years by mistake.
My question is if this is true ? Are there other folks on L1 who are participating in 401 K plans ? what are my options here ?
PLEASE HELP.
more...
hpandey
10-26 10:51 AM
Non - English speaking or not isn't it the responsibility of the driver of the vehicle to drive following the rules of the Road. Why make a U-turn where it is not allowed. Why turn when it is written NO turn on Red. Is it the fault of the sign that you cannot read English.
US is an English speaking nation although people from all parts of the word live here. We have to abide by the common language which is English and not Spanish. The DMV cannot post sign in hundreds of languages that different people speak.
If the driver violated the law he must be given a ticket unless it is his first offence when a warning would be sufficient. Rules are meant to be followed.
US is an English speaking nation although people from all parts of the word live here. We have to abide by the common language which is English and not Spanish. The DMV cannot post sign in hundreds of languages that different people speak.
If the driver violated the law he must be given a ticket unless it is his first offence when a warning would be sufficient. Rules are meant to be followed.
hair her from Fight Club.
amsgc
02-01 12:11 AM
On reading a bit about PIMS, it seems that if your information is not in the KCC, then the US consulate sends a request to Kentucky for information. It turns out KCC has access to the CLAIMS3 system used by the USCIS, and they generally respond in 48 hrs. Here is the link:
http://srwlawyers.com/Resources/ImmigrationNews/tabid/91/Default.aspx
Scroll down to Dec 12.
http://srwlawyers.com/Resources/ImmigrationNews/tabid/91/Default.aspx
Scroll down to Dec 12.
more...
Siddharta
03-12 08:49 PM
Doing MBA is useless ... unless you do it from a top 20 school
hot Fight Club - Helena Bonham
akhilmahajan
09-14 03:56 PM
Hi All,
I think a lof people have the LUD is 08/05/07 for 140 filed in TSC..and everyone takes their guesses. Please post if u r LUD for 140 is 08/05/2007 ;
Any idea what we are trying to achieve here?
If you guys thing i am dumb, you are more then welcome to think that, but i am still confused about the thread.
I think a lof people have the LUD is 08/05/07 for 140 filed in TSC..and everyone takes their guesses. Please post if u r LUD for 140 is 08/05/2007 ;
Any idea what we are trying to achieve here?
If you guys thing i am dumb, you are more then welcome to think that, but i am still confused about the thread.
more...
house #937) Fight Club
langagadu
03-04 04:20 PM
By the way, what do you smoke?
Hi guys,
this is my first post, so please bear with me ..How can a novice know that this forum is for EB category ? small suggestion to iv team, a small iv admin fix...
can typing immigrationvoice.org take us all to "ebimmigrationvoice.org" or eb-legal-immigrationvoice.org" ? (eg. ibnlive.com takes you to ibnlive.in.com) In that way eventually everybody will know its a eb immigration voice and no other legal immigrants forums..
Sr members, please share your views on this topic..
thanks
narendra
Hi guys,
this is my first post, so please bear with me ..How can a novice know that this forum is for EB category ? small suggestion to iv team, a small iv admin fix...
can typing immigrationvoice.org take us all to "ebimmigrationvoice.org" or eb-legal-immigrationvoice.org" ? (eg. ibnlive.com takes you to ibnlive.in.com) In that way eventually everybody will know its a eb immigration voice and no other legal immigrants forums..
Sr members, please share your views on this topic..
thanks
narendra
tattoo [Helena+Bonham+Carter+in+fight
trueguy
08-11 10:53 AM
Hi WillWin,
Can you add 2002,2003,2004 also, so that its easy to estimate for the later dates and count how many are ahead of us..
Please vote here for prior to 2004 cases;
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20768
Can you add 2002,2003,2004 also, so that its easy to estimate for the later dates and count how many are ahead of us..
Please vote here for prior to 2004 cases;
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20768
more...
pictures Helena Bonham Carter is
snathan
05-20 12:28 PM
Its part of a puzzle game.
She is posting one fraction of the question one site, other fractions on other site.
Now you have to assemble all pieces together and respond to her.
If you win, you get to date her. She is only looking for smart guys and this explains the plot :D
If you win, her husband will be after you...:D
She is posting one fraction of the question one site, other fractions on other site.
Now you have to assemble all pieces together and respond to her.
If you win, you get to date her. She is only looking for smart guys and this explains the plot :D
If you win, her husband will be after you...:D
dresses Helena Bonham Carter is
god_bless_you
06-14 09:14 PM
From Today's Lou Dobb's....
Tonight, congressional leaders are unable to break a deadlock and begin work on an immigration reform compromise. A provision in the Constitution could kill the Senate immigration bill and chances for immigration reform this year.
LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It could be a real procedural holdup or just a good excuse. But for now, immigration legislation is stalled on what could be the road to nowhere.
Here's the problem...
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: A notice has been served on the Senate that a blue slip will be filed, which, in effect, says they will not consider the bill in the House because it has a revenue enhancement in it, a tax provision in it.
SCHIAVONE: A blue slip is like a legislative traffic ticket. A blue slip would be slapped on the Senate bill because, besides a guest worker program, a wall at the border, punishment for employers who hire illegals, and so on, the measure includes tax provisions, including one requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes and another making U.S. workers overseas pay more taxes than they do now.
What's wrong with that? The Constitution says tax laws start in the House, not in the Senate. The same way, for example, that it's the Senate, not the House that confirms judges and cabinet secretaries.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: If they shot the Senate bill over here, it would be shot down in about a heartbeat simply because, for one thing, no revenue-raising bill can originate in the Senate. There's a constitutional problem.
So it can be stopped. I mean, they can try it. Have them send it. That's fine with me, because that's the end of it.
SCHIAVONE: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggests tacking the immigration bill on to a benign House tax bill that's been on the Senate docket so that it has a House bill designation. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wants assurances that no other legislation will hitch a ride on that train. Senator Frist's office says he has offered those assurances.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHIAVONE: And Kitty, it gets even more complicated than that. Congressman Tancredo says that lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol went home for Memorial Day and heard lots of protests about that Senate immigration bill and the eventual amnesty it offers, leaving some on Capitol Hill to wonder if in this election year it might just be better to let the clock run out on this session of Congress and start fresh next year -- Kitty.
PHILLIPS: Interesting stuff. Thanks very much. America's opinions on illegal immigration and border security should affect the legislation Congress adopts and the one that President Bush signs. In his news conference this morning, however, President Bush explained the crucial role of public opinion in a democracy.
Senator Jeff Sessions says the Senate ignored the will of the people in passing an amnesty bill for illegal aliens that would cost taxpayers tens of billions each year. A CBO report Sessions commissions says that the bill will also do nothing to stop illegal aliens entering this country. I asked Senator Sessions what the purpose of the Senate immigration bill is, if not to stop the flow of illegal aliens?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: That was the purpose, but the CBO numbers are based on the Senate bill. And they say, in a fact, there's no change in illegal immigration for 10 years. It would be 700,000 to 900,000 a year. If anything, that's certainly no less and maybe more than the current rate. So it really belies the argument that this bill is going to make any progress on enforcement. It certainly does not appear to.
PILGRIM: What does that say about the value of this bill, sir?
SESSIONS: Well I think it again is another indication that it is unacceptable, that it's terribly flawed, should never become law and will not do what it promises. It promises to enforce the border. And that's proven to be false. I think I've already said that, but the CBO confirmed it. Workplace enforcement is not there. And the future flow plans to allow millions coming in in the future at a much higher rate are just unprincipled and not valuable, not good for the United States. So we definitely need to review this legislation.
PILGRIM: House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said that he wants to take a long look at this bill and potentially hold hearings. Do you think hearings are appropriate? They're certainly not normal.
SESSIONS: No, they're not normal. But you know, the House has none of this so-called comprehensive approach to immigration. Theirs was focused primarily on enforcement. And so if they're going to consider the comprehensive bill at all, they absolutely should study it. We never had enough hearings in the Senate. This bill just basically came up and moved through with very few hearings directly related to the gray issues on immigration.
We just didn't discuss the real important issues in any significant way. For example, we've never considered whether or not we ought to adopt what Canada does, and that is to have a point system. Why haven't we even discussed that? It seems to me it makes an awful lot of sense.
PILGRIM: All right, you know, could this immigration reform bill be hammered out behind closed doors with the congressional leadership? Do you see it going that way?
SESSIONS: Well, that's a very dangerous thing. The American people's confidence in the government on a question of immigration is very low. They're very cynical. And if anyone thinks they can hammer out a bill and then ram it through without the American people being alerted, I think they're in for big trouble and just further erode public confidence in what we're doing.
PILGRIM: The Senate -- procedurally the Senate bill has to be attached to a House bill to avoid a constitutional issue. Would you support a unanimous consent to send to it the House?
SESSIONS: You know, I haven't made a decision about that. My personal view is we need to discuss this bill more. No one senator can block a bill from being considered, but can provide an opportunity for more debate. So we'll be looking at that.
PILGRIM: And timetable-wise, if this doesn't get to the House and Senate by August 1st, do you think it will make it at all in this session?
SESSIONS: You know, it may not. Then again, something could happen. But from what I'm hearing from the House, that they're so concerned about the viability of the comprehensive language in the Senate bill, not that they're so against the comprehensive bill, but just that they are uneasy and unaccepting of what we've done, then I think it's got a long way to go to become law, frankly.
Tonight, congressional leaders are unable to break a deadlock and begin work on an immigration reform compromise. A provision in the Constitution could kill the Senate immigration bill and chances for immigration reform this year.
LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It could be a real procedural holdup or just a good excuse. But for now, immigration legislation is stalled on what could be the road to nowhere.
Here's the problem...
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: A notice has been served on the Senate that a blue slip will be filed, which, in effect, says they will not consider the bill in the House because it has a revenue enhancement in it, a tax provision in it.
SCHIAVONE: A blue slip is like a legislative traffic ticket. A blue slip would be slapped on the Senate bill because, besides a guest worker program, a wall at the border, punishment for employers who hire illegals, and so on, the measure includes tax provisions, including one requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes and another making U.S. workers overseas pay more taxes than they do now.
What's wrong with that? The Constitution says tax laws start in the House, not in the Senate. The same way, for example, that it's the Senate, not the House that confirms judges and cabinet secretaries.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: If they shot the Senate bill over here, it would be shot down in about a heartbeat simply because, for one thing, no revenue-raising bill can originate in the Senate. There's a constitutional problem.
So it can be stopped. I mean, they can try it. Have them send it. That's fine with me, because that's the end of it.
SCHIAVONE: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggests tacking the immigration bill on to a benign House tax bill that's been on the Senate docket so that it has a House bill designation. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wants assurances that no other legislation will hitch a ride on that train. Senator Frist's office says he has offered those assurances.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHIAVONE: And Kitty, it gets even more complicated than that. Congressman Tancredo says that lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol went home for Memorial Day and heard lots of protests about that Senate immigration bill and the eventual amnesty it offers, leaving some on Capitol Hill to wonder if in this election year it might just be better to let the clock run out on this session of Congress and start fresh next year -- Kitty.
PHILLIPS: Interesting stuff. Thanks very much. America's opinions on illegal immigration and border security should affect the legislation Congress adopts and the one that President Bush signs. In his news conference this morning, however, President Bush explained the crucial role of public opinion in a democracy.
Senator Jeff Sessions says the Senate ignored the will of the people in passing an amnesty bill for illegal aliens that would cost taxpayers tens of billions each year. A CBO report Sessions commissions says that the bill will also do nothing to stop illegal aliens entering this country. I asked Senator Sessions what the purpose of the Senate immigration bill is, if not to stop the flow of illegal aliens?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: That was the purpose, but the CBO numbers are based on the Senate bill. And they say, in a fact, there's no change in illegal immigration for 10 years. It would be 700,000 to 900,000 a year. If anything, that's certainly no less and maybe more than the current rate. So it really belies the argument that this bill is going to make any progress on enforcement. It certainly does not appear to.
PILGRIM: What does that say about the value of this bill, sir?
SESSIONS: Well I think it again is another indication that it is unacceptable, that it's terribly flawed, should never become law and will not do what it promises. It promises to enforce the border. And that's proven to be false. I think I've already said that, but the CBO confirmed it. Workplace enforcement is not there. And the future flow plans to allow millions coming in in the future at a much higher rate are just unprincipled and not valuable, not good for the United States. So we definitely need to review this legislation.
PILGRIM: House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said that he wants to take a long look at this bill and potentially hold hearings. Do you think hearings are appropriate? They're certainly not normal.
SESSIONS: No, they're not normal. But you know, the House has none of this so-called comprehensive approach to immigration. Theirs was focused primarily on enforcement. And so if they're going to consider the comprehensive bill at all, they absolutely should study it. We never had enough hearings in the Senate. This bill just basically came up and moved through with very few hearings directly related to the gray issues on immigration.
We just didn't discuss the real important issues in any significant way. For example, we've never considered whether or not we ought to adopt what Canada does, and that is to have a point system. Why haven't we even discussed that? It seems to me it makes an awful lot of sense.
PILGRIM: All right, you know, could this immigration reform bill be hammered out behind closed doors with the congressional leadership? Do you see it going that way?
SESSIONS: Well, that's a very dangerous thing. The American people's confidence in the government on a question of immigration is very low. They're very cynical. And if anyone thinks they can hammer out a bill and then ram it through without the American people being alerted, I think they're in for big trouble and just further erode public confidence in what we're doing.
PILGRIM: The Senate -- procedurally the Senate bill has to be attached to a House bill to avoid a constitutional issue. Would you support a unanimous consent to send to it the House?
SESSIONS: You know, I haven't made a decision about that. My personal view is we need to discuss this bill more. No one senator can block a bill from being considered, but can provide an opportunity for more debate. So we'll be looking at that.
PILGRIM: And timetable-wise, if this doesn't get to the House and Senate by August 1st, do you think it will make it at all in this session?
SESSIONS: You know, it may not. Then again, something could happen. But from what I'm hearing from the House, that they're so concerned about the viability of the comprehensive language in the Senate bill, not that they're so against the comprehensive bill, but just that they are uneasy and unaccepting of what we've done, then I think it's got a long way to go to become law, frankly.
more...
makeup Bonham Carter Fight Club.
sands_14
04-09 09:57 PM
Can you get conventional loan with 10% down in New Jersey?
ANd that too for H1B/EAD. My broker says that you cant get conventional loan with work permit status.
Is that true?
The FHA option he is giving ,looks expensve to me.
Paying 9000usd upfront and then PMI for 5 years will be expensive.
Any suggestions appreciated.ANY good lenders ?
ANd that too for H1B/EAD. My broker says that you cant get conventional loan with work permit status.
Is that true?
The FHA option he is giving ,looks expensve to me.
Paying 9000usd upfront and then PMI for 5 years will be expensive.
Any suggestions appreciated.ANY good lenders ?
girlfriend in the actress fight club
gimme_GC2006
08-17 06:17 PM
Recently(July 12th 2009) travelled from Hyd to JFK via Dubai on AP. No problems with the airlines. Had to clear the secondary inspection at JFK airport ala Shahrukh Khan...;)
Note, was using my AP for the 2nd time within an year travelling from India.
what was secondary interview like?
Note, was using my AP for the 2nd time within an year travelling from India.
what was secondary interview like?
hairstyles Norton and Carter
logiclife
06-29 12:20 PM
I am putting an extra freshly painted mailbox with a big bold name in red color and a message-- 'Put my greencard here' for the postman. :)
Lets see how many years it will take for him to finally grant me my wish.
Yeah. Why not put a red stocking (christmas stocking) in the mail box tagged "For Greencards only. Do not put pizza hut coupons in here. This is for USCIS approval notices and greencards only".
Lets see how many years it will take for him to finally grant me my wish.
Yeah. Why not put a red stocking (christmas stocking) in the mail box tagged "For Greencards only. Do not put pizza hut coupons in here. This is for USCIS approval notices and greencards only".
mrsr
05-25 12:02 PM
I recently came to know like many desi comanies applying the h1 s for their whole family tree,like cousins, bros, sisters.
think about them they will sit on the bench forever, also they cannot complain.
We are inviting the trouble for our own future. I am not aganist the H1b program,but i am aganist about this family business. They come here on fake resumes and fake degrees.
I would encourage every one to complain aganist them, so that real experienced people will not be screwd up.
they also play tricks like one person will take the interview for the other one and so forth.
Desi consulting is a big mess.
we should act on it.
think about them they will sit on the bench forever, also they cannot complain.
We are inviting the trouble for our own future. I am not aganist the H1b program,but i am aganist about this family business. They come here on fake resumes and fake degrees.
I would encourage every one to complain aganist them, so that real experienced people will not be screwd up.
they also play tricks like one person will take the interview for the other one and so forth.
Desi consulting is a big mess.
we should act on it.
Singer
10-22 01:12 PM
I am a vocalist based in the US for the last 13 years. I have performed around the world at World music festivals, television shows, radios, various clubs, private events, for stars like P... S.... and D.... B.... and for organizations such as UN, UNESCO, UNDP, NDI, Schomburg Center, etc.I have always been legal and on several P1/O1 artist visas), I have applied on December 2006 for a EB1-EA green card
On June 10th 2007 I have received a RFE from the Nebraska Service Center, and I had to submit additional stuff proving I am really a singer with an international carreer. (I won an award by the way)before August 15th 2007. On August 3rd 2007 I went myself to the FedEx office and sent a priority 8.0lbs package to the Nebraska Service Center. It was delivered on August 6th signed by Mr. Brad B... at the Nebraska Center.
When I called they said my case was pending, same thing on the USCIS website where I create a portfolio. It is until April 2009 that thanks to congressional and senatorial help that we found out that my I-140 and I-485 had been denied, closed archived since end of August 2007! They said that my response to the RFE was received by them in October!
We argued that I never received the denial notice, neither my attorney received. My congressional liaison faxed them the ax receipt, then the congressional liaison there said: "O my God!" We were hoping that at this stage they would simply reopen the case and look at my 8 pounder RFE response! Nebraska Service Center decided that i will have to file an appeal.
In April 2008 I filled and appeal with Administrative Appeals Office in DC in 2008 (more money into thei pockets) to demonstrate that both my I-140 and I-485 were denied in error, (they had lost my application) the case was returned to Nebraska for them to reconsider.
The AAO decision granted me all that was in their power to give.
1. The appeal was rejected because it was untimely filed -- By statute (law) they cannot consider an untimely appeal regardless of circumstances however.
2. They state that if "an utimely appeal meets the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, the appeal "MUST" be treated as a motion and a decision "MUST" be made on the merits of the case. -- This is exactly what I asked for.
3. They state that a motion to reconsider must establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. Again this is exactly what I claimed.
4. They catagoricaly state in paragraph 2 on page 3 -- Here, the untimely appeal "MEETS" the requirements of a motion to reopen and reconsider. They also positively state that you "SUCCESSFULLY" argue that the October 10, 2007 decision was "FLAWED" and they point to 2 specific reasons -- that yur attorney of record was not properly notified and that your response to the RFE was not considered.
5. In paragraph 5 on page 3 they conclude that the October 10, 2007 decision was "CLEARLY IN ERROR" and that the decision "DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS".
6. Finally, in the last pragraph on page 3 and the 1st paragraph of page 4 they state "therefore, the director "MUST" consider the untimely appeal as a motion to reopen and reconsider and render a "NEW" decision acccordingly"
7. They also state that the "NEW" decision "MUST" thoroughly address all of the evidence submitted in your response to the RFE.
So the AAO�s office sent back my file to the Nebraska Service Center.
Then the I-140 was reopened and I finally approved May 20th 2009. At that time the rest should be like �a letter in the mail�. That is when I demanded that my I-485 be reopened as well.
They responded to my congressional liaison telling him that they will reopen the I-485 and tat the green cards were being prepared and would be sent to us in less then 60 days. Stating: This has been going on for too long�
That is when the �saga� took another turn. On August 14th 09 I received another RFE on the I-485! I was told by one lawyer that it was not so bad (they just needed to update my records since 2006 is the date of my first GC filling), But this RFE did not make sense because once the I-140 is approved they should not ask me to supply any documents work related. They wanted me to prove that I will continue to work in my field, what I have been doing for the last 2 years since they have denied my case and what will be my upcoming work offers.
Remember that in May 2009 they have said that the green cards would be sent�
We responded again with a 5 pounder file! We mailed it September 1rst 2009. I provided them with the same documents I sent in the 8 pounder they have lost in 2006, plus everything I have done since. Including all the performances with P. S., D. B. and letters from future contractors such as The United Nations, Schomburg, my booking agents letters, etc...)
October 19th 2009 we received an email from USCIS saying that a decision has been taken and that my husband�s I-485 has been denied!
Another ridiculous thing.
1-I am the petitioner, not my husband.
2-They should adjudicate my case first, not my husband�s!
3-my case is still pending no decision made on it�
At this time, we are awaiting the full denial explanation letter, to see what is the reason for their decision. Hoping that they just made another mistake for example dissociated my husband I-485 from mine the petitioner.
I am currently (Thank God) on an 01-visa valid until 2011, my husband has a -O3-visa
Because of this terrible saga, we have endured a tremendous stress, and anxiety. We have lost a lot of money. Between the lawyers fees, the various application fees plus the appeal we have spent more than $20,000. I have decided not to file another appeal because this is more money into their pockets. I am ready to sue the USICS with a writ of mandamus and more if they do not fix the multiple mistakes they have made.
Please somebody in this forum answers me. What should I do? Please help!
Thank you.
Singer
On June 10th 2007 I have received a RFE from the Nebraska Service Center, and I had to submit additional stuff proving I am really a singer with an international carreer. (I won an award by the way)before August 15th 2007. On August 3rd 2007 I went myself to the FedEx office and sent a priority 8.0lbs package to the Nebraska Service Center. It was delivered on August 6th signed by Mr. Brad B... at the Nebraska Center.
When I called they said my case was pending, same thing on the USCIS website where I create a portfolio. It is until April 2009 that thanks to congressional and senatorial help that we found out that my I-140 and I-485 had been denied, closed archived since end of August 2007! They said that my response to the RFE was received by them in October!
We argued that I never received the denial notice, neither my attorney received. My congressional liaison faxed them the ax receipt, then the congressional liaison there said: "O my God!" We were hoping that at this stage they would simply reopen the case and look at my 8 pounder RFE response! Nebraska Service Center decided that i will have to file an appeal.
In April 2008 I filled and appeal with Administrative Appeals Office in DC in 2008 (more money into thei pockets) to demonstrate that both my I-140 and I-485 were denied in error, (they had lost my application) the case was returned to Nebraska for them to reconsider.
The AAO decision granted me all that was in their power to give.
1. The appeal was rejected because it was untimely filed -- By statute (law) they cannot consider an untimely appeal regardless of circumstances however.
2. They state that if "an utimely appeal meets the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, the appeal "MUST" be treated as a motion and a decision "MUST" be made on the merits of the case. -- This is exactly what I asked for.
3. They state that a motion to reconsider must establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. Again this is exactly what I claimed.
4. They catagoricaly state in paragraph 2 on page 3 -- Here, the untimely appeal "MEETS" the requirements of a motion to reopen and reconsider. They also positively state that you "SUCCESSFULLY" argue that the October 10, 2007 decision was "FLAWED" and they point to 2 specific reasons -- that yur attorney of record was not properly notified and that your response to the RFE was not considered.
5. In paragraph 5 on page 3 they conclude that the October 10, 2007 decision was "CLEARLY IN ERROR" and that the decision "DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS".
6. Finally, in the last pragraph on page 3 and the 1st paragraph of page 4 they state "therefore, the director "MUST" consider the untimely appeal as a motion to reopen and reconsider and render a "NEW" decision acccordingly"
7. They also state that the "NEW" decision "MUST" thoroughly address all of the evidence submitted in your response to the RFE.
So the AAO�s office sent back my file to the Nebraska Service Center.
Then the I-140 was reopened and I finally approved May 20th 2009. At that time the rest should be like �a letter in the mail�. That is when I demanded that my I-485 be reopened as well.
They responded to my congressional liaison telling him that they will reopen the I-485 and tat the green cards were being prepared and would be sent to us in less then 60 days. Stating: This has been going on for too long�
That is when the �saga� took another turn. On August 14th 09 I received another RFE on the I-485! I was told by one lawyer that it was not so bad (they just needed to update my records since 2006 is the date of my first GC filling), But this RFE did not make sense because once the I-140 is approved they should not ask me to supply any documents work related. They wanted me to prove that I will continue to work in my field, what I have been doing for the last 2 years since they have denied my case and what will be my upcoming work offers.
Remember that in May 2009 they have said that the green cards would be sent�
We responded again with a 5 pounder file! We mailed it September 1rst 2009. I provided them with the same documents I sent in the 8 pounder they have lost in 2006, plus everything I have done since. Including all the performances with P. S., D. B. and letters from future contractors such as The United Nations, Schomburg, my booking agents letters, etc...)
October 19th 2009 we received an email from USCIS saying that a decision has been taken and that my husband�s I-485 has been denied!
Another ridiculous thing.
1-I am the petitioner, not my husband.
2-They should adjudicate my case first, not my husband�s!
3-my case is still pending no decision made on it�
At this time, we are awaiting the full denial explanation letter, to see what is the reason for their decision. Hoping that they just made another mistake for example dissociated my husband I-485 from mine the petitioner.
I am currently (Thank God) on an 01-visa valid until 2011, my husband has a -O3-visa
Because of this terrible saga, we have endured a tremendous stress, and anxiety. We have lost a lot of money. Between the lawyers fees, the various application fees plus the appeal we have spent more than $20,000. I have decided not to file another appeal because this is more money into their pockets. I am ready to sue the USICS with a writ of mandamus and more if they do not fix the multiple mistakes they have made.
Please somebody in this forum answers me. What should I do? Please help!
Thank you.
Singer
