GCD
07-27 10:07 PM
My lawyer filed the I-485, EAD and AP package for me and my wife. She put a G-28 notice for each application (with our and her signatures). She missed signing the AP G-28 for my wife. I asked her about this. She said it should be fine. They would not consider her notice of representation for this particular case, and would mail the AP approval directly at our home address.
I hope we are fine and our application doesn't get rejected since we had one check for all the applications.
Please reply. Thanks a lot.
Gurus. Please reply. Thanks a lot.
I hope we are fine and our application doesn't get rejected since we had one check for all the applications.
Please reply. Thanks a lot.
Gurus. Please reply. Thanks a lot.
wallpaper Eton school Founders Day and
leoindiano
07-09 01:45 PM
Buddy,
Why you are so angry??. I know more than you about immigration and all the rules. you try to understand the English properly and the meaning. I hope you are from a very remote place in India. So for you to understand better, Here is the meanign fo my message.
GUYS, YOUR PRIORITY DATE IS 2006 and why you are asking for the premium processing when many of your friends are still waiting to file their I 140 or I 485.
Don't try to put harsh words in public forums. You will get them back as a Boomerang...... Understand?:mad:
Needless to respond...but cant stay calm....
We were trying to track what is going on? 15 days was the published deadline. Priority date of mine is Nov 2004. You can check my previous posts. You are the one who was harsh to start with. Now you are talking about english. You got the boomarang.. good luck
Why you are so angry??. I know more than you about immigration and all the rules. you try to understand the English properly and the meaning. I hope you are from a very remote place in India. So for you to understand better, Here is the meanign fo my message.
GUYS, YOUR PRIORITY DATE IS 2006 and why you are asking for the premium processing when many of your friends are still waiting to file their I 140 or I 485.
Don't try to put harsh words in public forums. You will get them back as a Boomerang...... Understand?:mad:
Needless to respond...but cant stay calm....
We were trying to track what is going on? 15 days was the published deadline. Priority date of mine is Nov 2004. You can check my previous posts. You are the one who was harsh to start with. Now you are talking about english. You got the boomarang.. good luck
drirshad
08-08 11:16 AM
how much is 40 credits ...........
2011 Man in uniform
ita
11-19 03:41 PM
I have recently returned using AP. I had 3 APs and the officer took one and returned 2 back to me. Both were stamped and the officer told me that for my next trip I can use the 2 APs with me. And also that I need not submit any AP on my next trip back.
Did he say anything about how many trips abroad you can make with the 2 approvals he gave back?
My lawyer says I should apply for more AP's if I need to make more trips abroad than the # of approvals that I have.
SO I'm wondering how many approvals does one trip take?
Because if you have two stamped approvals with you ,a person with 2 initial approvals will have one stamped approval with him.
So will he be able to make another trip abroad?
Thank you.
Did he say anything about how many trips abroad you can make with the 2 approvals he gave back?
My lawyer says I should apply for more AP's if I need to make more trips abroad than the # of approvals that I have.
SO I'm wondering how many approvals does one trip take?
Because if you have two stamped approvals with you ,a person with 2 initial approvals will have one stamped approval with him.
So will he be able to make another trip abroad?
Thank you.
more...
belmontboy
02-26 05:37 PM
Original LCA salary is like 58k and current one is 40k
40K??? you kidding right?
You probably would earn more if you are working at Walmart. See if you can transfer your H1B to Walmart
40K??? you kidding right?
You probably would earn more if you are working at Walmart. See if you can transfer your H1B to Walmart
psam
08-26 04:17 PM
Hello all,
It appears that my green card is lost in mail.
My spouse received her 10 days back. Our 485 was approved on same day, so I think mine must be lost.
I will wait for another couple of days for it to appear. Meanwhile I had few questions
1. What is the process to getting a duplicate?
2. If I just get GC stamped on my passport, will I be able to transit from Paris or London airport?
It appears that my green card is lost in mail.
My spouse received her 10 days back. Our 485 was approved on same day, so I think mine must be lost.
I will wait for another couple of days for it to appear. Meanwhile I had few questions
1. What is the process to getting a duplicate?
2. If I just get GC stamped on my passport, will I be able to transit from Paris or London airport?
more...
fromnaija
07-11 06:31 PM
I am not sure if my previous employer will support, even i am not sure if they have sent a I-140 cancellation request to USCIS.
Can i file 485 through my current employer based on previously approved I-140 as my current I-140 has priority date recapture request.
If your former employer will not support your GC application and you are not even sure if they already cancelled your 140, then you CANNOT file 485 based on that 140.
As chennai already advised you may have your 140 premium processed.
However, reading back your origiinal post I don't think you can file 485 until your new 140 is approved since you are porting PD. So your PD must be ported to the new 140 successfully and the PD current before you can submit 485. Sorry for the initial confusion.
Can i file 485 through my current employer based on previously approved I-140 as my current I-140 has priority date recapture request.
If your former employer will not support your GC application and you are not even sure if they already cancelled your 140, then you CANNOT file 485 based on that 140.
As chennai already advised you may have your 140 premium processed.
However, reading back your origiinal post I don't think you can file 485 until your new 140 is approved since you are porting PD. So your PD must be ported to the new 140 successfully and the PD current before you can submit 485. Sorry for the initial confusion.
2010 Fact: The fees at Eton College
sumansk
07-16 01:10 PM
Thanks for the update..But the 'bueatifulmind' cannot 'waitendless':D
more...
dalasengineer
10-04 04:38 PM
I was issued a license based on my EAD expiration date. Same for my wife. We went back to DMV to get license extended based on I 94 expiry date. My I94 expiry date was different than ED expiration date as the customs gave expiry date which is 1 year later than EAD expriation date. I asked the customs officer why the date was different than my EAD date. He told my stay was valid till my I94 expiry date.
Anyways, IOWA DMV extended our license based on I94 date and we came back happy to know that we shall not have to walk in -30F to fetch our grocery as we wait to get our renewed EAD..
regardss
Anyways, IOWA DMV extended our license based on I94 date and we came back happy to know that we shall not have to walk in -30F to fetch our grocery as we wait to get our renewed EAD..
regardss
hair influence at Eton College.
gcdreamer05
01-09 12:29 PM
Anotehr question in thsi regard, say ur I-94 expired and you applied for and got h1 renewal, and the new I-797 has the new I-94 in it, so we cut it from there and staple it to our passports ???
And when we leave the country we surrender both the I-94s ???
And when we leave the country we surrender both the I-94s ???
more...
InTheMoment
07-19 10:47 PM
srarao,
Why would you get a RFE when you have done the skin test AND a subsequent chest x-ray ?
The only case that I read where a person got an RFE was when he had done the skin which was positive and inspite of the chest x-ray being negative.
The RFE he got was because the doctor unneccesarily made a note on the I-693 that a medication course is recommended.
Hi
Any guys with RFE on this
Why would you get a RFE when you have done the skin test AND a subsequent chest x-ray ?
The only case that I read where a person got an RFE was when he had done the skin which was positive and inspite of the chest x-ray being negative.
The RFE he got was because the doctor unneccesarily made a note on the I-693 that a medication course is recommended.
Hi
Any guys with RFE on this
hot prince harry in uniform. Eton
Soul
05-28 03:19 PM
I don't usually design like this! :P
- Soul :s:
- Soul :s:
more...
house the Eton College Natural
gc_check
09-08 05:06 PM
Yes, A colleague case is similar to yours. Got his "Welcome" mail via USPS, Online status still show as pending, but only difference, his case is EB3, not EB2. I-485 filed during the July rush, both the primary applicant and the spouse got the welcome notice via USPS mail. LUD seems to be in August sometime. The online status is not really reliable. Still shows as case received and pending. PD is July '04. He is not sure, and his consulting his attorney, if any action required on his side. Not sure, this is a exception or more cases like this.
tattoo Eton College - The Old Fives
IfYouSeekAmy
01-11 03:43 PM
I disagree. DV may not have relevance to you but to a person who does not have an advance degree but still would like to come here to live,work and have a better standard of life it is still VERY relevant. Remember that this country was built by IMMIGRANTS not neccessarily by immigrants with advanced degrees.
NO co-sponsors. This bill is going nowhere, even though I will jump with joy if it is passed. DV has no relevance right now and the country is diverse enough. Good idea to eliminate DV and add that to EB, but not going to happen. This congress is going to be a crab jar, one climbing up and others pulling down... nothing will get done.
NO co-sponsors. This bill is going nowhere, even though I will jump with joy if it is passed. DV has no relevance right now and the country is diverse enough. Good idea to eliminate DV and add that to EB, but not going to happen. This congress is going to be a crab jar, one climbing up and others pulling down... nothing will get done.
more...
pictures Eton College, Windsor.
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
dresses Hockey vs Marlborough College
DDash
08-29 11:39 PM
Try to record few of your conversations with him with a hidden camcorder and/or voice recorder, once you are sure you have enough evidence - talk to a good lawyer, also file for a h1b transfer and change job and once you get into your new job sue this old employer for mental agony and torture etc....... lawyer will manage this
Isnt recording conversations without the consent illegal? :confused:
Isnt recording conversations without the consent illegal? :confused:
more...
makeup Eton College was founded by Henry VI as a charity school to provide free
rajnag21
07-18 05:30 PM
Hi All,
My company has filed my 140 and 485 concurrently at TSC. Labor was from new hamshire. Is that ok ?
EB3 india Nov 2004
My company has filed my 140 and 485 concurrently at TSC. Labor was from new hamshire. Is that ok ?
EB3 india Nov 2004
girlfriend Latkes at Eton College
kprgroup
08-03 08:01 AM
Good Morning Everyone.If any one have any input please let me know.I am totally stressed.
Thx
KPR
Thx
KPR
hairstyles Eton College boys getting
rajbgp2002
12-22 07:28 PM
thanks for all response.
It was very helpful in understanding.
I wonder how strictly the SAME OR SIMILAR job is defined.
Should the job description match exactly the labor certification.
It was very helpful in understanding.
I wonder how strictly the SAME OR SIMILAR job is defined.
Should the job description match exactly the labor certification.
Suva
04-17 02:43 PM
hey dude there's nothing in the url u posted once go to the website and click the the pressure list url.that is the actual Noc codes that are active.Today morning when i spoke to the immigraton officer in alberta he was the one who told me ok.
It was mentioned last month in the AINP website that some changes would be there in the NOC list after April 15. Everybody whoever followed this thread saw the message earlier. On April 15 they removed the message from AINP website and apparantly there was no change in NOC list till now. OP gave us correct information when he/she created this thread. See my post in April 15 in this thread and I mentioned that nothing was changed in NOC list. Again going back to my original question did you follow this thread from start? I objected to this comment "I donno why people place messages with Half Knowledge". Apparantly you had the half knowlodge about this whole issue.
It was mentioned last month in the AINP website that some changes would be there in the NOC list after April 15. Everybody whoever followed this thread saw the message earlier. On April 15 they removed the message from AINP website and apparantly there was no change in NOC list till now. OP gave us correct information when he/she created this thread. See my post in April 15 in this thread and I mentioned that nothing was changed in NOC list. Again going back to my original question did you follow this thread from start? I objected to this comment "I donno why people place messages with Half Knowledge". Apparantly you had the half knowlodge about this whole issue.
poorslumdog
09-04 12:47 PM
did you pray for people who died in katrina? or for iraq war casualties?
You missed the sarcasm...
You missed the sarcasm...