akhilmahajan
04-23 09:43 AM
I dont think there is any such practise...........
i think the lawyer or your company who filed it, will get all the communication from USCIS...........
so just keep on trying.............
i am not a pro at it, but will like to say, never give up trying.........
i think the lawyer or your company who filed it, will get all the communication from USCIS...........
so just keep on trying.............
i am not a pro at it, but will like to say, never give up trying.........
wallpaper Hibiscus Flower Tattoo
singhsa3
10-22 01:00 PM
Some one gave me negative feedback on this thread.
To that person, why not you come out in open and discuss your problem.
To that person, why not you come out in open and discuss your problem.
gc12292004
09-11 04:53 PM
Taken second FP on 09/03/2009 and waiting!!!
2011 Tropical Flower Tattoos
Hong12
12-13 11:23 AM
I have a big problem that I got approved on the H1 Recapture to get back into US on January 15, 09 though my attorney screwed up by putting someone else background into the Petition Letter submitted to USCIS with my application. The petition letter to USCIS is all wrong. It states the wrong education, work experience and job duty. They put somebody else background into mine. They put the correct sponsoring company on the first page of the letter though at the end of the second page they put the wrong sponsoring company. In this case, what should I do and what should I answer at the US Consular in Malaysia to get my H1 Visa? What should I do now? Please advise. Do I have to resubmit the application back to USCIS? Will I get rejected? Please help. Thank you very much.
more...
rocket
01-08 03:20 PM
you guys are missing the point. contest rules have to be followed to the letter because they are a legal contract. if the rules state that the parents have to be legal residents then that's the way it is. if they decide to change the rules for the next contest due to political pressure , fine. but now they are opening themselves up to lawsuits for not following their own contract. i think it's funny how so many people are in favor of breaking the law as long as it suits their agenda. oh wait these are all people in favor of people breaking the law to come to america illegally. correct me if i'm wrong.
rkiran
12-03 02:26 PM
Hi vin13,
Do you also need documents to prove relationship with the person who is ill? If so what kind of documents would suffice?
I have an appointment tomorrow and only have a letter from the doctor.
Thanks,
We had a emergency situation last year. We had already filed our AP documents a couple of months ago but had not been approved. We went to USCIS office and showed hospital letter as a proof for emergency. They made us fill a new application and AP was approved in 1 day.
If you do not get help in one of the offices, try your luck at another USCIS office.
Do you also need documents to prove relationship with the person who is ill? If so what kind of documents would suffice?
I have an appointment tomorrow and only have a letter from the doctor.
Thanks,
We had a emergency situation last year. We had already filed our AP documents a couple of months ago but had not been approved. We went to USCIS office and showed hospital letter as a proof for emergency. They made us fill a new application and AP was approved in 1 day.
If you do not get help in one of the offices, try your luck at another USCIS office.
more...
Anders �stberg
May 3rd, 2005, 05:29 AM
Nice work Anders. Personally, I pan for the stuff on the ground and leave the in air stuff static.That's probably a good approach, panning should be eaiser in the slower corners too.
2010 Flower - Flower Tattoo
tdasara
02-11 09:06 PM
My passport was supposed to expiry 1/2007. I made 2 trips outside US (Canada and India) and while entering both the times my I-94 was dated till 6/2008 my H1b expiry.
I now have a new passport and so see no issues.
Infact my H1b visa was stamped beyond the expiry of my passport so I'll have to carry both my passports with me.
I now have a new passport and so see no issues.
Infact my H1b visa was stamped beyond the expiry of my passport so I'll have to carry both my passports with me.
more...
MArch172008
05-22 07:26 PM
I want to apply labour with another employer based on future employment and when that labour get approved for how many days it is valid, can i apply I 140 for that labour .
Do i have to take transfer in order to apply for I 140 ?
Can two I 140 process parallel ?
Thanks for you all support..
Keep up the Good job
Do i have to take transfer in order to apply for I 140 ?
Can two I 140 process parallel ?
Thanks for you all support..
Keep up the Good job
hair flower tattoos
smuggymba
10-08 05:14 PM
GCNirvana007 - Who filed you PERM? Who provided you with approved I-140? Who filed ur GC? ....company A.............right.............so u have to work for company A and yes u r obligated legally from USCIS perspective to work with them. Don't tell me u don't know this. Going thru GC process, one almost becomes an immigration lawyer so you should know this if u don't already.
Recent H1-B company B has nothing to do with GC.
Bottomline - Why did u file GC in EB category? ANSWER - To work for that employer A.
Now u r saying something about company C running ur payroll.
Ok. So whoever runs my payroll is my employer. Lets say its Company C.
Question is
Am I obligated to Company A in any way?
Am I obligated to Company B which had my recent H1B?
Based on the answers i am assuming no but will wait to hear from you guys.
Recent H1-B company B has nothing to do with GC.
Bottomline - Why did u file GC in EB category? ANSWER - To work for that employer A.
Now u r saying something about company C running ur payroll.
Ok. So whoever runs my payroll is my employer. Lets say its Company C.
Question is
Am I obligated to Company A in any way?
Am I obligated to Company B which had my recent H1B?
Based on the answers i am assuming no but will wait to hear from you guys.
more...
vicky007
05-10 12:16 PM
Sorry, the link is not working anymore.
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
hot Full Color Flower Tattoos on
blah45
10-09 06:26 PM
Called USCIS and my information is still not in their database. The operator asked me to call again later.
:(:mad:
:(:mad:
more...
house Hawaiian Flower Tattoos:
greyhair
09-18 08:25 AM
thread starter is saying it will make dates current....how is this possible with the same amount of spillover?
Family based is also heavily backlogged. How can there be flow of thousands of unused visas in Family Based for flow to Employment Based? Even in Family based there are categories 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4. The visas will first flow from top to bottom in Family Based. Wouldn't all the categories have to be current before any visas flow to Employment based? I read somewhere that the employment based backlog size is 800,000 applications. :confused: Let's say even if there is a small number of visa flow from Family Based to Employment Based, how can a small number of visa flow from Family Based to employment based backlog be sufficient to approve 800,000 applications?
Family based is also heavily backlogged. How can there be flow of thousands of unused visas in Family Based for flow to Employment Based? Even in Family based there are categories 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4. The visas will first flow from top to bottom in Family Based. Wouldn't all the categories have to be current before any visas flow to Employment based? I read somewhere that the employment based backlog size is 800,000 applications. :confused: Let's say even if there is a small number of visa flow from Family Based to Employment Based, how can a small number of visa flow from Family Based to employment based backlog be sufficient to approve 800,000 applications?
tattoo tropical flower tattoo designs
ramaonline
11-21 02:56 PM
Could you be a little specific?
Was your h1 approved or did you get RFE (Request for evidence). Did your attorney receive the approved petition? Are you currently in the US or outside US?
Was your h1 approved or did you get RFE (Request for evidence). Did your attorney receive the approved petition? Are you currently in the US or outside US?
more...
pictures Tropical Flower Tattoos.
vinabath
04-22 03:40 PM
As per my understanding, due to the July 2, 2007 fiasco, Visa dates were unavailable for ALL chargeability areas between July 2nd - July 17th 2007 (i.e until USCIS temporarily made relaxation after protests from IV et al. )
So how can the processing date be July 11th !!
It implies that they are processing a case that was filed/receipted on July 11th !! Whereas as per the Visa bulletin they should not be processing any case that was filed when PDs were not current during that brief time slot (2nd - 17th of july).
If indeed people did continue to file their papers even after July 2nd (and some did), then may be they are processing those (relatively) few applications. But would they allow such applications. I guess they are...they are atleast processing them :) , whether or not they will honor such filings I dont know....
That means they do not have any applications that were not processed before July 11th based on current visa bulletin Priority dates.
So how can the processing date be July 11th !!
It implies that they are processing a case that was filed/receipted on July 11th !! Whereas as per the Visa bulletin they should not be processing any case that was filed when PDs were not current during that brief time slot (2nd - 17th of july).
If indeed people did continue to file their papers even after July 2nd (and some did), then may be they are processing those (relatively) few applications. But would they allow such applications. I guess they are...they are atleast processing them :) , whether or not they will honor such filings I dont know....
That means they do not have any applications that were not processed before July 11th based on current visa bulletin Priority dates.
dresses tropical flower tattoos
Rajeev
10-11 09:43 AM
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
more...
makeup Because tropical flower
Templarian
08-27 11:45 AM
^Perfect :fab:
girlfriend lion tattoos - tropical flower
dallasdude
09-25 04:42 PM
They forgot to metion one more track, "Are you jewish?", as they have lots of programs for jewish people to migrate into united states. I was suprised to meet so many of so called jews in my office from all over the world (mainly from Russia, Ukarine and such..) who come in through those programs. They are eligible to apply for green card as soon as they enter United States and get it in no time. And can apply for citizenship after 5 years just like everyone else.
So are the refugees from war torn countries.
So are the refugees from war torn countries.
hairstyles tropical flower tattoos. tropical flower tattoos
trueguy
08-09 08:21 PM
I would do that if you could help me on how to do that. I looked for options and i don't find any options to change the poll.
Appreciate your help
Appreciate your help
WeldonSprings
01-29 12:40 AM
Guys,
I had to open a new thread to get your attention to this. But it seems that the House Stimulus Bill passed this evening contains the 'E-Verify' . Incidently, when Sen. Menendez introduced the Visa Recapture Bill last year, he held the republican's at bay by not passing E-verify in the senate. If, E-verify is passed in the senate, then we will loose an important bargaining chip for visa recapture bill of any kind. Please read the info. below. You can also google e-verify house stimulus bill to get the latest.
Action step is to strip e-verify from the Senate Stimulus bill. Please see below.
ACTION: Stimulus Bill Includes E-verify Requirement
January 23, 2009 � 2 Comments
The House Appropriations Committee made a serious mistake when it approved an amendment to the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) that would require all businesses and other public or private �entities� that contract to receive money from the stimulus package to use the flawed federal Basic Pilot/E-Verify program. This will not only delay use of stimulus funds, but will hurt millions of workers. It should be stripped from the bill.
The E-Verify provision in the stimulus will:
� Harm workers who are either falsely denied work or are targeted by employers abusing the E-verify program;
� Create substantial new burdens for businesses, especially small businesses, at precisely the wrong time;
� Send the wrong signal to new voters that the Congress prefers to play politics by enacting symbolic and ineffective immigration �enforcement� measures over serious and effective economic stimulus or serious immigration reform.
ACTION NEEDED
1. Call Speaker Nancy Pelosi (head of Democratic Leadership) at 202-225-0100.
2. Call Chairman Obey (chair of the House Appropriations committee) at 202-225-3365.
3. Call Democrats who sit on the appropriations committee if you live in their state.
4. Tell them:
� You are extremely disappointed that the E-Verify requirement was included on the Stimulus and you want the provision stripped from the bill.
� Including E-verify in the stimulus package completely undercuts the purpose of the bill and will only be counterproductive for American business, workers and the economy.
� Real solutions to our economic problems and immigration reform should be approached seriously and separately.
� The flawed E-Verify program�s database errors will wrongly workers their jobs.
FAIR (the Federation for American Immigration Reform) just sent out an alert to its very active network to call committee members in support of this provision. We need to counter their calls.
I had to open a new thread to get your attention to this. But it seems that the House Stimulus Bill passed this evening contains the 'E-Verify' . Incidently, when Sen. Menendez introduced the Visa Recapture Bill last year, he held the republican's at bay by not passing E-verify in the senate. If, E-verify is passed in the senate, then we will loose an important bargaining chip for visa recapture bill of any kind. Please read the info. below. You can also google e-verify house stimulus bill to get the latest.
Action step is to strip e-verify from the Senate Stimulus bill. Please see below.
ACTION: Stimulus Bill Includes E-verify Requirement
January 23, 2009 � 2 Comments
The House Appropriations Committee made a serious mistake when it approved an amendment to the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) that would require all businesses and other public or private �entities� that contract to receive money from the stimulus package to use the flawed federal Basic Pilot/E-Verify program. This will not only delay use of stimulus funds, but will hurt millions of workers. It should be stripped from the bill.
The E-Verify provision in the stimulus will:
� Harm workers who are either falsely denied work or are targeted by employers abusing the E-verify program;
� Create substantial new burdens for businesses, especially small businesses, at precisely the wrong time;
� Send the wrong signal to new voters that the Congress prefers to play politics by enacting symbolic and ineffective immigration �enforcement� measures over serious and effective economic stimulus or serious immigration reform.
ACTION NEEDED
1. Call Speaker Nancy Pelosi (head of Democratic Leadership) at 202-225-0100.
2. Call Chairman Obey (chair of the House Appropriations committee) at 202-225-3365.
3. Call Democrats who sit on the appropriations committee if you live in their state.
4. Tell them:
� You are extremely disappointed that the E-Verify requirement was included on the Stimulus and you want the provision stripped from the bill.
� Including E-verify in the stimulus package completely undercuts the purpose of the bill and will only be counterproductive for American business, workers and the economy.
� Real solutions to our economic problems and immigration reform should be approached seriously and separately.
� The flawed E-Verify program�s database errors will wrongly workers their jobs.
FAIR (the Federation for American Immigration Reform) just sent out an alert to its very active network to call committee members in support of this provision. We need to counter their calls.
samir
04-27 08:48 PM
Hi,
Can some one help me out on the above subject, i had birthcertificate which contains only my Father's name( This birth certificate got from MRO office at AP, India). One of my friend told me that the birth certificate should contain both Mother and Father's Name.
Can some one provide me sample birth certficate , so that it will helpfull to me send to my parents, so that i will get BC from MRO office, AP, India.
Thanks inadvance
Please check with your local Indian consulate if they can issue a BC. If you have a current original passport which includes the names of both your parents, it should work fine. Your original BC is not required.
Link to this service provided by the Consulate General in San Francisco
http://www.cgisf.org/visa/indian_services.html#mis-bc
Can some one help me out on the above subject, i had birthcertificate which contains only my Father's name( This birth certificate got from MRO office at AP, India). One of my friend told me that the birth certificate should contain both Mother and Father's Name.
Can some one provide me sample birth certficate , so that it will helpfull to me send to my parents, so that i will get BC from MRO office, AP, India.
Thanks inadvance
Please check with your local Indian consulate if they can issue a BC. If you have a current original passport which includes the names of both your parents, it should work fine. Your original BC is not required.
Link to this service provided by the Consulate General in San Francisco
http://www.cgisf.org/visa/indian_services.html#mis-bc
0 comments:
Post a Comment