ab53579
06-18 10:42 PM
thanks for your reply, where I shuld put concurnt i-140 and i-485, there is just a chck mark and there is n clumn where I can write cncurent i-140 and i-485,
Thanks,
Jan
Thanks,
Jan
wallpaper by Tom Petty#39;s Full Moon
glus
01-19 12:56 PM
Hi Guys,
Some time ago I posted a message asking you guys to contact me via a private email if you needed a good attorney. Today I realized I had a lot of private messages. I just changed my profile so you can e-mail me directly.l
The attorney has a small office, working along without paralegals. She is very nice as a professional and a person. She is not money-driven. If you need her contact, please contact me via a private e-mail or message.
Regards,
Some time ago I posted a message asking you guys to contact me via a private email if you needed a good attorney. Today I realized I had a lot of private messages. I just changed my profile so you can e-mail me directly.l
The attorney has a small office, working along without paralegals. She is very nice as a professional and a person. She is not money-driven. If you need her contact, please contact me via a private e-mail or message.
Regards,
senk1s
10-17 06:37 PM
have AP will travel ...
For adjustee's AP gives permission to travel out-in. I think it should be ok to travel (you can subscribe to case updates and you'll know the case status)
For adjustee's AP gives permission to travel out-in. I think it should be ok to travel (you can subscribe to case updates and you'll know the case status)
2011 tom petty full moon fever
vikramy
11-24 01:06 AM
I think it's 3 month before expiry
and yes she can apply for one
and yes she can apply for one
more...
Blog Feeds
09-05 10:00 PM
After many months of calling on the Federal Government to more vigorously enforce our immigration laws, it turns out that some of the biggest immigration law violators are officials in the State of Arizona. And as soon as the Justice Department charged them with breaking the law, they seemed to lose their zeal for strong enforcement. Let me explain. Back in 1986, President Reagan signed the Immigration Control and Reform Act (IRCA). The law established the I-9 system so that employers would not knowingly hire undocumented workers. At the same time, in order to insure that workers with accents or...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/09/does-arizona-really-want-tough-immigration-enforcement.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/09/does-arizona-really-want-tough-immigration-enforcement.html)
imconfused
07-02 10:51 PM
everyone here talks abt geting GC asap.. even though most of us are swearin at the USCIS/DOS whtevr, deep down we all want GCs. but after thi sJuly VB, do u have faith/trust in the system now? assume that they accept our application and what if they give out GCs 2-3 yrsfrom now, what makes u think they cant come back and say it was a mistake and u have to give ur GC back?
If they can do what they did today, and get away with it, they can do anything. its no differnet from Telgi scam/Laloo gobar/chara scam, so many scams in india. they get away once, they get away again. the middle class/average/educated tax payers like us suffer.
If they can do what they did today, and get away with it, they can do anything. its no differnet from Telgi scam/Laloo gobar/chara scam, so many scams in india. they get away once, they get away again. the middle class/average/educated tax payers like us suffer.
more...
arulz
11-10 09:55 PM
I had a question about using using AC21.
Here is the scenario: Let us say I work for XYZ Brothers who applied for my 140 and 485. I have approved 140, H-1b, EAD and AP.
If XYZ laid me off or I left them for career progression or more money 180 days after my 485 was filed and 140 approved what happens to my 485 application?
Wouldnt USCIS question that since my sponsoring employer does not exist anymore, who am I going to work for once I get my green card? or is this coverd under AC21?
Please advice!
Here is the scenario: Let us say I work for XYZ Brothers who applied for my 140 and 485. I have approved 140, H-1b, EAD and AP.
If XYZ laid me off or I left them for career progression or more money 180 days after my 485 was filed and 140 approved what happens to my 485 application?
Wouldnt USCIS question that since my sponsoring employer does not exist anymore, who am I going to work for once I get my green card? or is this coverd under AC21?
Please advice!
2010 Full Moon Fever is the solo
hsst
02-25 05:27 PM
I found the following link on USCIS web site
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=97e19c337879d110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=54519c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Does this mean that USCIS is trying to speedup pending 485's ?
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=97e19c337879d110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=54519c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Does this mean that USCIS is trying to speedup pending 485's ?
more...
gk_2000
07-07 07:47 PM
Obama-speak Versus Immigration Facts (http://xelanbonn.com/2888/obama-speak-versus-immigration-facts/)
Some comments on Obama's speech
Some comments on Obama's speech
hair album tom petty wildflowers.
yuvarajc
09-13 08:52 PM
Iam sure lot of people have asked this question.
Iam in my 6th yr of H1b.
I have my I140 approved and I received my 3 yrs extension.
Question is can i shift jobs now? What are my options?
Once I move to the new job and file for GC, can I claim the old PD date ?
Thanks
Iam in my 6th yr of H1b.
I have my I140 approved and I received my 3 yrs extension.
Question is can i shift jobs now? What are my options?
Once I move to the new job and file for GC, can I claim the old PD date ?
Thanks
more...
joyaseem
09-01 08:13 PM
Pathetic pace! :(
No change at TSC. NSC moved by 2 days.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=21f2d9bbf0cb4110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D
No change at TSC. NSC moved by 2 days.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=21f2d9bbf0cb4110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D
hot tom petty full moon fever
cbpds
05-19 06:25 PM
hi,
I am planning to extend the visitor visa for my mom for another two months.
Her current I94 expires on June 25th and At POE the officer told her that she must go back after 6 months
If I apply for extension of her visa before 45 days and she leaves US on current I94 date (June 25th) since she did not get a result,
1.Does she need to apply for a new visa since her extension got rejected even though she left before her current I94 date?Will it affect her future visits in case that extension gets rejected.?
2.What happens if she gets a rejection before her current I94 expiry on July 25th, will she need leave earlier and apply for new visitor visa?
Appreciate your answers
Thanks
I am planning to extend the visitor visa for my mom for another two months.
Her current I94 expires on June 25th and At POE the officer told her that she must go back after 6 months
If I apply for extension of her visa before 45 days and she leaves US on current I94 date (June 25th) since she did not get a result,
1.Does she need to apply for a new visa since her extension got rejected even though she left before her current I94 date?Will it affect her future visits in case that extension gets rejected.?
2.What happens if she gets a rejection before her current I94 expiry on July 25th, will she need leave earlier and apply for new visitor visa?
Appreciate your answers
Thanks
more...
house girlfriend Tom Petty - Full
shah121
01-21 01:00 AM
Hi,
I am stuck between H1B extn based on 6 yr and GC. My current H1B is expiring on 8th April 2011. I want to file for extn to recover my days outside US (about 60 days). Based on current processing time at Vermont processing center (6 to 8 months), I will not receive approval by end of 6 yr (about June 25th). My PERM was filed on 16-May-2011.
My company says it is not recommended to file for extn beyond 6 hr based on PERM pending if you already have H1 extn approval pending.
What are my options here to extend my stay beyond June 25th?
Appreciate your reply.
Thanks,
Stan
I am stuck between H1B extn based on 6 yr and GC. My current H1B is expiring on 8th April 2011. I want to file for extn to recover my days outside US (about 60 days). Based on current processing time at Vermont processing center (6 to 8 months), I will not receive approval by end of 6 yr (about June 25th). My PERM was filed on 16-May-2011.
My company says it is not recommended to file for extn beyond 6 hr based on PERM pending if you already have H1 extn approval pending.
What are my options here to extend my stay beyond June 25th?
Appreciate your reply.
Thanks,
Stan
tattoo Enough) - Tom Petty amp; the
fromnaija
01-17 09:55 AM
I applied I-140 in EB2 NIW category. I need to apply for H1 extension as this is my 5th year. I need to talk to my employer.
I see because of retrogression one cannot file for I-485.
Can I file for extension of H1 after I get I-140 approval or do I have to wait for I-1485 filing.
Please advise.
After 140 approval you can file for H1 extension and get a three year extension.
I see because of retrogression one cannot file for I-485.
Can I file for extension of H1 after I get I-140 approval or do I have to wait for I-1485 filing.
Please advise.
After 140 approval you can file for H1 extension and get a three year extension.
more...
pictures tom petty full moon fever
harryv
05-13 02:10 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110513/ap_on_re_us/us_us_visa_lottery (Computer glitch forces redo of US visa lottery)
Can this agency be any more incompetent? This will likely lead to lawsuits by those who were "mistakenly" notified that they were selected. Glad I didn't get a notice this year. I would be very upset.
Can this agency be any more incompetent? This will likely lead to lawsuits by those who were "mistakenly" notified that they were selected. Glad I didn't get a notice this year. I would be very upset.
dresses Tom Petty - Full Moon Fever
rayoflight
08-03 02:43 PM
USCIS released their survey report on their website today.
USCIS - Policy Review Survey Report (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=dd7c4c94d71d9210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=dd7c4c94d71d9210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD)
The PDF can be accessed via
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Outreach/Feedback%20Opportunities/Policy_Survey_Report_2010.pdf
USCIS - Policy Review Survey Report (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=dd7c4c94d71d9210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=dd7c4c94d71d9210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD)
The PDF can be accessed via
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Outreach/Feedback%20Opportunities/Policy_Survey_Report_2010.pdf
more...
makeup hair tom petty- moon fever tom
ajcates
03-11 12:27 AM
I can't figure it out.
girlfriend tom petty full moon fever
Blog Feeds
05-22 01:10 PM
Today�s New York Times brims with immigration dysfunctions galore. The paper's immigration reports tellingly underscore the front-burner role this white-hot policy issue plays in the nation and the world. In the first section alone, we see: � An open-mike faux pas by British PM Gordon Brown, referring to an immigration opponent as a �bigoted woman,� prompted his abject apology and now risks a Labor Party loss in the UK election next week; � A controversial opinion piece and articles on the political, legal and economic fallout of the Arizona Peace-Officers� Suspect-and-Arrest-or-Refrain-and-Be-Sued Act; � A report on four Dream Act marchers�...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/04/all-the-immigration-news-thats-fit-to-print-1.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/04/all-the-immigration-news-thats-fit-to-print-1.html)
hairstyles tom petty full moon fever
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
nlssubbu
12-17 02:43 PM
My current AP expires on July 30, 2008. I am planning to apply for renewal in Jan or Feb 2008, which is 6 months prior to expiration. I understand that nowadays it takes more than 3 months for approval.
In case of emergency, Can I travel to India with my current AP while AP renewal petition is pending?.
Thanks for your help.
I do not foresee any problem in using your current AP, if your travel time is well within it's period.
In case of emergency, Can I travel to India with my current AP while AP renewal petition is pending?.
Thanks for your help.
I do not foresee any problem in using your current AP, if your travel time is well within it's period.
lovish_21
07-27 03:02 PM
HI,
I have concurrent filed I140 and 485 in Aug 2007. My I 140 is still pending. Can some one let me know what could be the reason. Is there any one whose i140 is pending since last three years.I am worried because processing time is around 4-6 months.Any help in this regard will be appriciated.
Thanks
I have concurrent filed I140 and 485 in Aug 2007. My I 140 is still pending. Can some one let me know what could be the reason. Is there any one whose i140 is pending since last three years.I am worried because processing time is around 4-6 months.Any help in this regard will be appriciated.
Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment