mdipi
10-20 09:44 PM
not bad at all, but the text sucks
:evil:
:evil:
wallpaper Justin Bieber 600×429
lostinus
07-17 06:56 PM
Great job IV team. Congratulations. Thanks a million.
Contributed $100 today. Pledge to put more in every quarter.
Contributed $100 today. Pledge to put more in every quarter.
sathyaraj
12-12 12:40 PM
Do not worry too much about your role change, because when you are using AC21 you need to be in same or similar job as specified in ONET job codes.
If you are a systems analyst, then you can potential work as a business analyst also. As the job duties for systems analyst includes some of the activities performed by BA. It is the job duties which have more waitage.
http://www.onetcodeconnector.org/ccreport/15-1051.00
If you refer the link above, all software jobs (except Management) starts with 15.XXXX as job code. So long as you stay with that you are fine.
If you are a systems analyst, then you can potential work as a business analyst also. As the job duties for systems analyst includes some of the activities performed by BA. It is the job duties which have more waitage.
http://www.onetcodeconnector.org/ccreport/15-1051.00
If you refer the link above, all software jobs (except Management) starts with 15.XXXX as job code. So long as you stay with that you are fine.
2011 Justin Bieber – Baby
yabadaba
06-22 02:54 PM
bump up
more...
gk_2000
11-02 07:58 PM
gali gali mein phirta hei
tu kyu banke banjara
aa mere dil mein bas ja
mere nagrik awara
tu kyu banke banjara
aa mere dil mein bas ja
mere nagrik awara
pd_recapturing
09-04 10:41 AM
There is a confusion in following statement:
"Secondly, the visa number must be "current" for the new I-140 petition (most likely EB-2) before the I-485 transfer is requested"
I read in some other forums that you do not need to wait for your PD to be current to interfile. Is that true ? My attorney is also saying that we can interfile as soon as we receive the RN. My PD is May 2004.
"Secondly, the visa number must be "current" for the new I-140 petition (most likely EB-2) before the I-485 transfer is requested"
I read in some other forums that you do not need to wait for your PD to be current to interfile. Is that true ? My attorney is also saying that we can interfile as soon as we receive the RN. My PD is May 2004.
more...
AB1275
12-17 12:42 PM
I had posted my query on another thread but thought of creating a new one with all the updates.
My priority date is Feb 26, 2008 and I-140 mid 2008.
It was applied under EB2 category (Masters Degree). Currently, I'm on the 5th yr of my H1. My 6th year starts in Feb 2009.
Had received an RFE to which we responded but it still got denied On Dec 3, 2008. I didn't read the RFE but the lawyer said they have requested for Audited Financial statements of 2007 which my company does not have. The main reason for the denial was that the company has a loss and we did not provide Audited statements for 2007. I wasn�t being paid per the prevailing rate in 2007. So I couldn�t provide W-2 for 2007.
My lawyer suggested that we appeal the denial and start a new PERM in EB3 category through the same company.
She also suggested that in the appeal we show that I am being paid per the prevailing in 2008 since my priority date is in 2008. I have to respond to the Denial by Dec 30th but I will not have my W-2 by then. Am not in a position to provide pay stubs since the difference in pay is an adjustment in Dec.
My question to you all are:
1. Are these my only option to make sure I can renew my H1 after the 6th
year?
2. How long does an appeal take to respond?
3. Is appeal my only way out? Can I request for a
Motion to Re-open/Reconsider by Dec 30th and submit the W-2 in
Jan 2009?
4. If I show the prevailing wage of EB2 and I am filing another PERM in EB3,
will that be a problem?
5. At what stage of the green card process should I be in to be eligible for
my H1 to be extended after my 6th year?
6. Any other issues that might come up?
Thanks!
My priority date is Feb 26, 2008 and I-140 mid 2008.
It was applied under EB2 category (Masters Degree). Currently, I'm on the 5th yr of my H1. My 6th year starts in Feb 2009.
Had received an RFE to which we responded but it still got denied On Dec 3, 2008. I didn't read the RFE but the lawyer said they have requested for Audited Financial statements of 2007 which my company does not have. The main reason for the denial was that the company has a loss and we did not provide Audited statements for 2007. I wasn�t being paid per the prevailing rate in 2007. So I couldn�t provide W-2 for 2007.
My lawyer suggested that we appeal the denial and start a new PERM in EB3 category through the same company.
She also suggested that in the appeal we show that I am being paid per the prevailing in 2008 since my priority date is in 2008. I have to respond to the Denial by Dec 30th but I will not have my W-2 by then. Am not in a position to provide pay stubs since the difference in pay is an adjustment in Dec.
My question to you all are:
1. Are these my only option to make sure I can renew my H1 after the 6th
year?
2. How long does an appeal take to respond?
3. Is appeal my only way out? Can I request for a
Motion to Re-open/Reconsider by Dec 30th and submit the W-2 in
Jan 2009?
4. If I show the prevailing wage of EB2 and I am filing another PERM in EB3,
will that be a problem?
5. At what stage of the green card process should I be in to be eligible for
my H1 to be extended after my 6th year?
6. Any other issues that might come up?
Thanks!
2010 Justin Bieber - 2010 Juno
nfinity
07-17 11:08 AM
I have jumped on this a couple times.
more...
jsb
10-29 10:20 PM
I have same question......if for example as above someone changes to SAP....what should be done in terms of notification to USCIS..?
Do we just go ahead and join the new job / consulting firm and get a letter from them to match the O*NET code or description as above...?
One should ask experts, or may try to find answer in USCIS FAQs. But as I learnt from various sources, you do nothing, unless asked, i.e. there is nothing to send or tell to USCIS.
Do we just go ahead and join the new job / consulting firm and get a letter from them to match the O*NET code or description as above...?
One should ask experts, or may try to find answer in USCIS FAQs. But as I learnt from various sources, you do nothing, unless asked, i.e. there is nothing to send or tell to USCIS.
hair Justin Bieber and his
kumar.yerr
12-15 05:36 PM
I attended Visa Interview for my H1B extension today (Dec 11th 2009) at Hyderabad Consulate.
I do have a genuine job and had been working for the same client since the day I started working in the US..
VO gave me 221g Yellow form and he didn't check anything. He asked me to drop all the documents in the drop box. He didn't mention anything about the passport.
Below is conversation:
1) DS-156, 157 & Passport
A) I handed him those docs.
2) Are you returning to the same job?
A) Yes sir
3) Can I see the client letter?
A) I gave a letter from Fedex. (Attached the client letter I submitted to the Consulate Officer)
4) Can I see your Paystubs?
A) Gave him all the paystubs since May 2007.
5) Why are the amounts different in paystubs?
A) Base salary is same, but bonus component varies every pay cycle. Also, my employer had switched to a different payroll company and since then they are running the payroll weekly.
He then gave me a 221g Yellow form and asked me to drop all the documents in the dropbox. And he also asked me if he could keep the client letter. I said Yes.
Couple of questions:
1) Should i drop my passport along with all other documents?
2) What is the success rate and
3) Why do they usually issue an Yellow slip?
Any help is greatly appreciated..
Thanks and Regards..
I do have a genuine job and had been working for the same client since the day I started working in the US..
VO gave me 221g Yellow form and he didn't check anything. He asked me to drop all the documents in the drop box. He didn't mention anything about the passport.
Below is conversation:
1) DS-156, 157 & Passport
A) I handed him those docs.
2) Are you returning to the same job?
A) Yes sir
3) Can I see the client letter?
A) I gave a letter from Fedex. (Attached the client letter I submitted to the Consulate Officer)
4) Can I see your Paystubs?
A) Gave him all the paystubs since May 2007.
5) Why are the amounts different in paystubs?
A) Base salary is same, but bonus component varies every pay cycle. Also, my employer had switched to a different payroll company and since then they are running the payroll weekly.
He then gave me a 221g Yellow form and asked me to drop all the documents in the dropbox. And he also asked me if he could keep the client letter. I said Yes.
Couple of questions:
1) Should i drop my passport along with all other documents?
2) What is the success rate and
3) Why do they usually issue an Yellow slip?
Any help is greatly appreciated..
Thanks and Regards..
more...
pappu
07-30 11:38 AM
I do not doubt that these calls serve a purpose. What I am not very happy about is what transpires after the call. I look for some kind of gratification or closure after a certain issue has been raised. When we participate in such calls with Ombudsman, and even when individuals focus on their own issues, it would not be too difficult to identify some of the generic problems. From the calls this time and the past one, I would be surprised it they did not see customer service and processing times as major issues. Not to say these are high priority problems but that most likely would be the summary of two calls.
But, what happens after that? We do not see what procedures are in place/discussions to rectify these problems.
Thats where I think calls/meeting with USCIS local or DC body could help. Thanks for pointing out that such meetings are already in the works. I will defer my discussion to my local chapter. Thanks.
I agree.
Maybe this is something our community can ask Ombudsman's office so that after calls, we can know any follow up action and status on the 'issues' raised during the call.
But, what happens after that? We do not see what procedures are in place/discussions to rectify these problems.
Thats where I think calls/meeting with USCIS local or DC body could help. Thanks for pointing out that such meetings are already in the works. I will defer my discussion to my local chapter. Thanks.
I agree.
Maybe this is something our community can ask Ombudsman's office so that after calls, we can know any follow up action and status on the 'issues' raised during the call.
hot Justin Bieber And Drake At The
pappu
05-21 04:49 PM
Recently my wife went for finger printing.... none of us except her received FP notice. So she went there and did FP and asked the person over there about why I didn't get FP.
The person asked her my name and A#. He looked into the system and said I didn't get FP because by July you will get your GCs...... my FPs are still valid.... I know what he said is not true.... as you can see my PD.... but I keep wondering why he said that after looking in his system...... :confused:
PS - Sorry for the Title. But I am just quoting him.
Did you ask him to give you this information in writing? :)
The person asked her my name and A#. He looked into the system and said I didn't get FP because by July you will get your GCs...... my FPs are still valid.... I know what he said is not true.... as you can see my PD.... but I keep wondering why he said that after looking in his system...... :confused:
PS - Sorry for the Title. But I am just quoting him.
Did you ask him to give you this information in writing? :)
more...
house justin bieber pictures 2010.
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
tattoo 2010 justin bieber
mrajatish
03-24 04:31 PM
I like the idea - any takers, I am ready to work with that person.
more...
pictures justin bieber kids choice
pappu
09-09 09:45 PM
Dear Members,
IV recommends that you wear IV T shirts for the Rally.
Here is a link to buy IV T-Shirts for the rally.
http://www.cafepress.com/immivoice/
If you are participating in the rally, please buy your IV-Shirt today. It would be help to convey the message if all the rally participants are wearing IV T-shirts. It would be even better if the T-Shirt would have the name of the State where you reside. IV volunteers have worked very hard to create the designs and products at IV merchandise shop. Check it out:
http://www.cafepress.com/immivoice/3465245
Pls start buying as soon as possible so that the T shirts can be shipped to your home before you come for the rally.
IV recommends that you wear IV T shirts for the Rally.
Here is a link to buy IV T-Shirts for the rally.
http://www.cafepress.com/immivoice/
If you are participating in the rally, please buy your IV-Shirt today. It would be help to convey the message if all the rally participants are wearing IV T-shirts. It would be even better if the T-Shirt would have the name of the State where you reside. IV volunteers have worked very hard to create the designs and products at IV merchandise shop. Check it out:
http://www.cafepress.com/immivoice/3465245
Pls start buying as soon as possible so that the T shirts can be shipped to your home before you come for the rally.
dresses Justin Bieber has added
vadicherla
11-05 09:11 AM
I just voted
more...
makeup Teen superstar Justin Bieber
CantLeaveAmerica
04-16 02:08 PM
Trust me. That's a move you will surely enjoy....I moved in the opposite direction.......Houston to Allentown
Houston is the best. Lovely weather, Really "BIG" city so you can get or do whatever you want. The metro system is not the best but if you only need it to commute to work(downtown) then no problem. By the way they don't give a crap about driver's licenses in houston, too many applications. They'll give you 6yrs easily on ur license.
Yep, dont worry about DL in texas, I renewed my TX license over the internet for 6 years, till 2013:)
Houston is the best. Lovely weather, Really "BIG" city so you can get or do whatever you want. The metro system is not the best but if you only need it to commute to work(downtown) then no problem. By the way they don't give a crap about driver's licenses in houston, too many applications. They'll give you 6yrs easily on ur license.
Yep, dont worry about DL in texas, I renewed my TX license over the internet for 6 years, till 2013:)
girlfriend 03/08/2010 - Justin Bieber
help43
09-10 09:02 PM
I Have H1-B Approval but I dont have I94 with it.
Actually my H1-B valid from October 1st.
I went to my friends consultancy, those people said like you can work for any employer in OPT Status. So they want to run my paystubs up to september 1st 2008.Once I got the H1-B they want to run my paystubs from another company(througth Which i applied My h1-b).
Now I got the h1-b approval but i didnt get the new i-94 with it. And my previous employer ready to run paystubs with new h1-b company.
My OPT expiration date is on dec 29 2008.I am planning to go to consulate in the month of November 2008.
Please help me out what do i need to
1) Which Country i need to go?(Canada, INDIA or Mexico)
2) What documents i need to take?
Actually my H1-B valid from October 1st.
I went to my friends consultancy, those people said like you can work for any employer in OPT Status. So they want to run my paystubs up to september 1st 2008.Once I got the H1-B they want to run my paystubs from another company(througth Which i applied My h1-b).
Now I got the h1-b approval but i didnt get the new i-94 with it. And my previous employer ready to run paystubs with new h1-b company.
My OPT expiration date is on dec 29 2008.I am planning to go to consulate in the month of November 2008.
Please help me out what do i need to
1) Which Country i need to go?(Canada, INDIA or Mexico)
2) What documents i need to take?
hairstyles JUSTIN BIEBER 2010 PHOTOSHOOT
intheyan
08-19 01:24 PM
You will get the approval notice letter mailed to your home address. Please read it word by word. If they mention about "any ADIT processing" then schedule an appointment and do the ADIT. Other wise sit cool and your GC will be on your Way to your home address by ordinary post:cool:.
We got the same exact Email or online status update but we also got the Aproval notice which didn't say about anything about ADIT so we didn't worry and got the GC card the next day.
OK.
I got the magic mail today welcoming the new permanent resident.
It talks about ADIT processing(see below).
What does this mean?
I haven't received "CARD PRODUCTION ORDERED" email.
It is normal?
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident.
On August 18, 2008, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before you get your new card call customer service. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
(PD sep 2004, Nebraska, USCIS receipt date: 7/27/2007, notice date : Aug 20, 2007.)
We got the same exact Email or online status update but we also got the Aproval notice which didn't say about anything about ADIT so we didn't worry and got the GC card the next day.
OK.
I got the magic mail today welcoming the new permanent resident.
It talks about ADIT processing(see below).
What does this mean?
I haven't received "CARD PRODUCTION ORDERED" email.
It is normal?
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident.
On August 18, 2008, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before you get your new card call customer service. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
(PD sep 2004, Nebraska, USCIS receipt date: 7/27/2007, notice date : Aug 20, 2007.)
singhsa3
08-14 11:02 PM
This will be mass distributed with the flyers.
amitjoey
06-09 12:43 PM
Even though your pd is current, It is quite possible that they have not assigned a visa number yet to your case. So they are probably assigning by order of PD's
Example: Sept 2003, before Oct 2003,....So on..so they are assigning earlier PDs Visa numbers first.
Second possibility is that there could be too many eligible before your date or exactly your date and in which case they will go with RD..which in your case is July 2nd, 2007. There could be people with 485 RD's in 2005 when the dates were current.
This is pure guess work and speculation, I really do not know how they do this. But if they really have enough visas for EB2, yours will still be current next month.
-------------------------------------------
India EB3- PD: June 2003
Contributed $480 + Monthly Recurring contributor.
Example: Sept 2003, before Oct 2003,....So on..so they are assigning earlier PDs Visa numbers first.
Second possibility is that there could be too many eligible before your date or exactly your date and in which case they will go with RD..which in your case is July 2nd, 2007. There could be people with 485 RD's in 2005 when the dates were current.
This is pure guess work and speculation, I really do not know how they do this. But if they really have enough visas for EB2, yours will still be current next month.
-------------------------------------------
India EB3- PD: June 2003
Contributed $480 + Monthly Recurring contributor.
