Canadian_Dream
11-30 02:18 PM
Can you put the exact working of the status ?
Is it one of the following ?
Current Status: Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident.
or
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
or
something else.
Is it one of the following ?
Current Status: Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident.
or
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
or
something else.
wallpaper Justin Bieber And Selena Gomez
WillIBLucky
11-17 01:56 PM
That brings up a good point, why do you think all the PDs are moving except India?
Is there really that many applicants from India than China
The problem is even CIS layed off many people since 2004 and now are left with few people to work on. The left out people are not "like Indians in USA" kind of people.
And further more they cannot offshore processing to India as well. So what do they do......hmm lets retrogress Indians. Its working for them.
Is there really that many applicants from India than China
The problem is even CIS layed off many people since 2004 and now are left with few people to work on. The left out people are not "like Indians in USA" kind of people.
And further more they cannot offshore processing to India as well. So what do they do......hmm lets retrogress Indians. Its working for them.
invincibleasian
03-27 02:03 PM
I received my Labor Certificate with PERM process. Right now, I can't continue the process for I-140 and I-485. My lawyer just found out that my degree is Master of Business Administration, while the Labor Certificate is based on Master of Science. My current position is Software Engineer.
My questions are:
1. Is there a problem of having an MBA and working as a software engineer? As my understanding, MBA and MSc are the same level.
2. Can I continue the case since I already got my Labor Certificate?
I appreciate your feedback. Thank you.
Amend the LC!
My questions are:
1. Is there a problem of having an MBA and working as a software engineer? As my understanding, MBA and MSc are the same level.
2. Can I continue the case since I already got my Labor Certificate?
I appreciate your feedback. Thank you.
Amend the LC!
2011 justin bieber best new
simple1
06-18 01:47 PM
Recently multiple threads have been created in IV forum about
* Illegal’s (now conveniently called undocumented immigrants) * their anchor babies * and CIR.
We should not support Illegal’s and their agenda.
Support CIR only after seeing something for EB non-ROW or atleast legal immigration in general.
We need to oppose CIR till we see such a provision.
* Illegal’s (now conveniently called undocumented immigrants) * their anchor babies * and CIR.
We should not support Illegal’s and their agenda.
Support CIR only after seeing something for EB non-ROW or atleast legal immigration in general.
We need to oppose CIR till we see such a provision.
more...
p_kumar
02-27 12:16 PM
Ok, since your GC has been approved, it is not true you need to wait 180 days. There is nothing in the law that says that. What is true is something different. When you received your GC through your employer, the presumption is that you will remain with this employer for a long time to come as it was a permanent job offer position. Of course, under some circumstances, it is possible you can't work for the same employer any longer; for instance, the company is closing etc. But, if you receive a GC and you voluntarily leave your employer immediately or after a few months, you MAY have issues during naturalization. At that time your application can be scrutinized whether or not you really was going to work for the employer who sponsored you. I've seen this happening several times. If you left voluntarily after a short period of time, the USCIS may say it was fraud and you never intended to work for your sponsor. So, in general, it is advisable to remain with the original sponsor for some time. Some attorneys say 1 year is enough, some say 2 years is enough and some say 6 months is enough. It is up to you. The law does not specify what the period is, but be logical and careful about this. You can hold 5 jobs, but I would suggest to stay with your current employer for as long as possible. Think forward, and not backward.
Hope this makes sense.
You have seen applications being scrutinized for employment history at the time of naturalization?. can you please provide elaborate and provide examples?. Otherwise dont scare people unnecessarily.:mad:
Hope this makes sense.
You have seen applications being scrutinized for employment history at the time of naturalization?. can you please provide elaborate and provide examples?. Otherwise dont scare people unnecessarily.:mad:
tabletpc
07-30 09:13 AM
Sad to know about u r situation and hope u will get out of it soon.
Remember when a emplyee losses job ts the responsibility of the emplyoer to report to USCICS to cancel the H1B for that employee. Just wondering if u r employer has/not reported to USCICS. Talk to them and try to get some time until u can transfer u r h1b....!!!!
As of porting....yes you can port PD once u r i-140 is approved. Is u r I-140 approved..??if its pending..u could be at risk if u get RFE and u r employer don't respond on time. Then you can't have n approved i-140 so will not be able to port PD. However if u have approved i-140 then , all u need to do in new job is get PERM done and use the earlier PD.
You can port PD from Eb3 to any employment category.
Did i answer u r queries...???
Good luck
Remember when a emplyee losses job ts the responsibility of the emplyoer to report to USCICS to cancel the H1B for that employee. Just wondering if u r employer has/not reported to USCICS. Talk to them and try to get some time until u can transfer u r h1b....!!!!
As of porting....yes you can port PD once u r i-140 is approved. Is u r I-140 approved..??if its pending..u could be at risk if u get RFE and u r employer don't respond on time. Then you can't have n approved i-140 so will not be able to port PD. However if u have approved i-140 then , all u need to do in new job is get PERM done and use the earlier PD.
You can port PD from Eb3 to any employment category.
Did i answer u r queries...???
Good luck
more...
lostinbeta
10-03 01:13 PM
:::whistling:::
SPAM*INFINITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:::runs away again::::::
:::evil chuckle in background:evil: :::
SPAM*INFINITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:::runs away again::::::
:::evil chuckle in background:evil: :::
2010 Shoot, justin justinbieber
amsgc
06-16 01:22 AM
http://www.murthy.com/chatlogs/ch051407_P.html
Chat User : My husband is on H1B and is about to file for his I-485.
I am currently on an F-1 visa. Do I have to convert to H-4 to file for I-485
with my husband, or can I file while being on F-1? Please advise.
Attorney Murthy : A person can file the I-485 while still in F-1 status, but unlike the H1B/H-4 or L-1/L-2 which are dual intent, the F-1 is a pure nonimmigrant status. This means that, upon the I-485 filing, one is no longer considered to be in F-1 status, but converts to an adjustment applicant, eligible for the EAD and AP, etc.
Chat User : My husband is on H1B and is about to file for his I-485.
I am currently on an F-1 visa. Do I have to convert to H-4 to file for I-485
with my husband, or can I file while being on F-1? Please advise.
Attorney Murthy : A person can file the I-485 while still in F-1 status, but unlike the H1B/H-4 or L-1/L-2 which are dual intent, the F-1 is a pure nonimmigrant status. This means that, upon the I-485 filing, one is no longer considered to be in F-1 status, but converts to an adjustment applicant, eligible for the EAD and AP, etc.
more...
tikka
05-31 02:23 PM
This is the least we can do...
thank you delhirocks. this was the first step.
Now you could you please take a few mins and send out web faxes. You can send it to all the states.
Thank you again
thank you delhirocks. this was the first step.
Now you could you please take a few mins and send out web faxes. You can send it to all the states.
Thank you again
hair selena gomez and justin bieber
veni001
11-08 04:54 PM
I am in a similar situation where I am going to start my EB2 , however the internal job requirements for my position demand more than what the EB2 requirements are. They are as following:
Bachelors plus 6-8 yrs experience
or alternatively
Masters plus 4-6 yrs experience.
I do have Masters and my overall experience is 5.5 yrs but out of that 4.5 yrs were with the current employer so those won't be counted. How will I become eligible for EB2? Will the lawyer downgrade the requirement to Masters + 1 yr experience or will he keep requirement to say Masters + 4yr ? I guess I'm confused how this will work. :o
How many similar positions are in the company? is this the current position you are in, if yes you can not use experience with your employer even in future for this position.
In either case your best bet would be a different EB2 qualified position with same employer or New employer.:o
Bachelors plus 6-8 yrs experience
or alternatively
Masters plus 4-6 yrs experience.
I do have Masters and my overall experience is 5.5 yrs but out of that 4.5 yrs were with the current employer so those won't be counted. How will I become eligible for EB2? Will the lawyer downgrade the requirement to Masters + 1 yr experience or will he keep requirement to say Masters + 4yr ? I guess I'm confused how this will work. :o
How many similar positions are in the company? is this the current position you are in, if yes you can not use experience with your employer even in future for this position.
In either case your best bet would be a different EB2 qualified position with same employer or New employer.:o
more...
pbojja
03-31 11:36 AM
can you please let us know which service center you filed and what was your notice date in i485 recipt notice
Thank you all
TSC Receipt date is July 2007 ,Notice date is Oct 2007 . By the way I contacted local congressman office when I was current in Jan 2009 , they helped me big time so TSC started processing my file .
Thank you all
TSC Receipt date is July 2007 ,Notice date is Oct 2007 . By the way I contacted local congressman office when I was current in Jan 2009 , they helped me big time so TSC started processing my file .
hot selena gomezfeb , new
GCeffect
01-29 04:16 PM
I'm from Bangladesh and my PD is May 2006....EB3
I applied for my I485, I765 and I131 in July 2, 2007. Then me and my wife received the I765 approval in couple of months then the real drama began.
In October i received the letter about our i131 denial. The reason for the denial was approval of I485 (I485 approval news was mentioned in my i131 denial letter). My lawyer then told me to wait couple of months to receive my cards. I waited but didn't receive anything. The I called the USCIS and they told me that there is no update in the system and they requested me to go to the local immigration office to notify the matter. After visiting the local immigration office they asked me to write a status request letter to USCIS.
Me and lawyer already wrote 4 letters to USCIS requesting the status of my i485 as my i131 got denied. Finally one of the cases status for i131 showing online that you�re RFE has been received and case has been resumed; and the other one is still case denied. On the other hand the i485 for both mine and my wife's case still showing like it was showing six months ago..."received and pending"........
I�m totally confused in this present situation. USCIS never requested for any RFE against my i131, so why they put in the online status that the RFE has been received. All I did was requested for the I485 applications as they mentioned in my i131 denial letter that my i485 got approved��
Some help here will be highly appreciated��.thanks in advance
I applied for my I485, I765 and I131 in July 2, 2007. Then me and my wife received the I765 approval in couple of months then the real drama began.
In October i received the letter about our i131 denial. The reason for the denial was approval of I485 (I485 approval news was mentioned in my i131 denial letter). My lawyer then told me to wait couple of months to receive my cards. I waited but didn't receive anything. The I called the USCIS and they told me that there is no update in the system and they requested me to go to the local immigration office to notify the matter. After visiting the local immigration office they asked me to write a status request letter to USCIS.
Me and lawyer already wrote 4 letters to USCIS requesting the status of my i485 as my i131 got denied. Finally one of the cases status for i131 showing online that you�re RFE has been received and case has been resumed; and the other one is still case denied. On the other hand the i485 for both mine and my wife's case still showing like it was showing six months ago..."received and pending"........
I�m totally confused in this present situation. USCIS never requested for any RFE against my i131, so why they put in the online status that the RFE has been received. All I did was requested for the I485 applications as they mentioned in my i131 denial letter that my i485 got approved��
Some help here will be highly appreciated��.thanks in advance
more...
house justin bieber and selena gomez
desi3933
06-19 10:07 AM
If there is sufficient time left on H1B, can one go for stamping at consulate although I485 is filed.
Yes. H1-B stamping has nothing to do with I-485 filing.
Please do some research before posting any question. Thanks!
Please check and verify details with your attorney/lawyer. This is NOT a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
Yes. H1-B stamping has nothing to do with I-485 filing.
Please do some research before posting any question. Thanks!
Please check and verify details with your attorney/lawyer. This is NOT a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
tattoo Gomezmar, view a justinjan
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
pictures Justin Bieber 2011 New Years
gc28262
06-14 03:54 PM
Thank you gc28262 for sharing that link. Very informative. I have a question though about that case study: This paragraph is confusing - "Raj learned that the CIS will not allow him to substitute his new I-140 into his pending EB3 adjustment of status (AOS) application. Instead, they require a new AOS filing. Knowing the the CIS can take years to process an AOS application, even when the applicant's priority date is current at all times, he decided to opt for overseas consular processing."
Does this infer that If my current employer decides to file EB2 PERM application and I-140, I will have to wait till the priority date (Priority date for the new EB2 PERM) becomes current? Can I not use my September 2004 priority date and file I-485?
I am not thorough on this topic. From what I read on the forum, you can use your old PD in your current I-485. More knowledgeable people please chip in.
Does this infer that If my current employer decides to file EB2 PERM application and I-140, I will have to wait till the priority date (Priority date for the new EB2 PERM) becomes current? Can I not use my September 2004 priority date and file I-485?
I am not thorough on this topic. From what I read on the forum, you can use your old PD in your current I-485. More knowledgeable people please chip in.
dresses images justin bieber and
sanjose
07-17 07:11 PM
so this is only for ppl with BOTH white card and green card.
what bout rest of us like who never been to canada or applied for canadian white card. if i get GC in future and visit canada, will I face any issues? just wondering?
Please read this: Entering Canada • U.S. Consular Services in Canada (http://www.consular.canada.usembassy.gov/enter_canada.asp)
what bout rest of us like who never been to canada or applied for canadian white card. if i get GC in future and visit canada, will I face any issues? just wondering?
Please read this: Entering Canada • U.S. Consular Services in Canada (http://www.consular.canada.usembassy.gov/enter_canada.asp)
more...
makeup With selena just bff Justindec
desi3933
05-20 09:51 PM
...........
Is it possible to have EB2 category and old priority date without refiling new I-140?
No. You need 2 (or more) approved I-140s to port PDs.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Is it possible to have EB2 category and old priority date without refiling new I-140?
No. You need 2 (or more) approved I-140s to port PDs.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
girlfriend Justin Bieber amp; Selena Gomez
gunabcd
07-17 04:48 PM
I am ashamed to read these comments coming from "highly skilled" people. Administrators please take preventive steps. We dont want some sickos malign IV. :mad: :mad:
Come on guys, we are in US not in Saudi Arabia. Such comments are made in US senate also. It's not illegal to say something like that. It was a good joke. With all due respect let me ask you, are "Highly skilled" not human being?
Still I agree that such comments should not be made, because it could become a norm, and someone someday could really cross the boundry, which could create a problem for IV.
Come on guys, we are in US not in Saudi Arabia. Such comments are made in US senate also. It's not illegal to say something like that. It was a good joke. With all due respect let me ask you, are "Highly skilled" not human being?
Still I agree that such comments should not be made, because it could become a norm, and someone someday could really cross the boundry, which could create a problem for IV.
hairstyles of justin bieber#39;s new
pappusheth
05-02 12:02 AM
Should not be an issue. Dont forget to give the approval notice to the IO. Otherwise you will be given only till Aug 2009.
Thanks snathan. I do plan to carry I-797. When you say "you will be given till Aug 2009", what are you referring to?
Thanks snathan. I do plan to carry I-797. When you say "you will be given till Aug 2009", what are you referring to?
pboy
03-25 02:13 PM
I went to Chennai and Hyderabad thru Dubai in last 2 years. I felt it was really nice. No transit visa stuff. Good veggie food, lot of entertainment and good service. A bit costly compared to other airlines. On overall good experience and no regrets for higher price
satishku_2000
06-15 11:10 PM
Thanks for the reply.
But i filed GC 6 times i had three approved I 140's with different priority dates.
I missed filing my 485 couple times.
thanks,
I asked because how much sanity would have left in a person if someone is in the game since 2001 ...:D :D :D :D
Good luck
But i filed GC 6 times i had three approved I 140's with different priority dates.
I missed filing my 485 couple times.
thanks,
I asked because how much sanity would have left in a person if someone is in the game since 2001 ...:D :D :D :D
Good luck
No comments:
Post a Comment