seahawks
07-21 09:28 AM
I'm not sure if Indian citizens are eligible to apply for an investment visa here...
of course they can, investment visa has not country quotas. Money speaks:)
of course they can, investment visa has not country quotas. Money speaks:)
wallpaper i love you mom quotes from; miss you mom quotes. i miss you already quotes.
waiting_4_gc
07-27 03:30 PM
You can't write 01/01/1995. In that case your check will be invalidated. Check expires after 180 days. :D :D
But you are correct for RD :)
Umm, what if USCIS takes more than 180 days to encash the checks?
Do we have to re-file the application/re-send the check?:confused:
But you are correct for RD :)
Umm, what if USCIS takes more than 180 days to encash the checks?
Do we have to re-file the application/re-send the check?:confused:
lazycis
12-11 09:19 AM
6 months according to the USCIS website
2011 i miss you already quotes. i miss you quotes for him. i
navyug
10-13 10:22 PM
Hi,
My first NIW/I140 was concurrent filed with I485 for both my wife and me. When they denied I140, the USCIS also denied I485s for both of us. I have a pending MTR for that I140.
While the MTR was pending, I filed another NIW/I140, which was approved. I noticed that the approval notice has the A# that was on the I485 of the first petition.
So, should I assume that my the USCIS has interfiled my I485 automatically and my old PD is active?
Thanks.
Yes. It happened in my case as well. My I-140 was denied from NSC after having filed I-485. It was refiled (yes refiled in TSC, not MTR and got a different case number). After the I-140 denial my I-485 was also denied. Upon approval on my new I-140 the I-485 was reopened automatically. The online status had not changed from 'Denied". I was surprised when I got my second round of FP notices in August 09. Now the status says "Case has resumed processing". I would however suggest that you ask your attorney to send a letter to USCIS.
My first NIW/I140 was concurrent filed with I485 for both my wife and me. When they denied I140, the USCIS also denied I485s for both of us. I have a pending MTR for that I140.
While the MTR was pending, I filed another NIW/I140, which was approved. I noticed that the approval notice has the A# that was on the I485 of the first petition.
So, should I assume that my the USCIS has interfiled my I485 automatically and my old PD is active?
Thanks.
Yes. It happened in my case as well. My I-140 was denied from NSC after having filed I-485. It was refiled (yes refiled in TSC, not MTR and got a different case number). After the I-140 denial my I-485 was also denied. Upon approval on my new I-140 the I-485 was reopened automatically. The online status had not changed from 'Denied". I was surprised when I got my second round of FP notices in August 09. Now the status says "Case has resumed processing". I would however suggest that you ask your attorney to send a letter to USCIS.
more...
senthil1
04-14 09:58 PM
Even though your employer made you to fake your experience you accepted that. If your employer or anyone complaints about faking your experience you may be in serious trouble especially if you put USA experience. That could lead to fraud charge (In case if anyone reports to FBI) in extreme case. But I did not hear any cases like that in past because no one made formal complaint to government agencies.
Hi,
I am on H1B without job and no paystubs.
My employer has been trying to find a project for me but till now he couldnt get anything.
Its been 6 months alreay since I am on H1B visa.
He made me modify my actual experience to include fake projects .
Now I am thinking of filing a complaint to DOL.
I have my H1B petition and offer letter from the employer.
But I am worried that if I file complaint ,my employer will threaten me telling that I faked my experience and submitted fake resumes.
What should I do? Will DOL take any action against me?
Any success stories of DOL complaint filing?
Hi,
I am on H1B without job and no paystubs.
My employer has been trying to find a project for me but till now he couldnt get anything.
Its been 6 months alreay since I am on H1B visa.
He made me modify my actual experience to include fake projects .
Now I am thinking of filing a complaint to DOL.
I have my H1B petition and offer letter from the employer.
But I am worried that if I file complaint ,my employer will threaten me telling that I faked my experience and submitted fake resumes.
What should I do? Will DOL take any action against me?
Any success stories of DOL complaint filing?
sujan_vatrapu
10-26 10:38 PM
to be 'fair' FOX is better in the sense we know what we are getting but if u look at NPR, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, they make us believe they are giving out a balanced view of the world but they all have a 'liberal' agenda, to understand the issues better you have to listen to both sides of the argument, by criticizing FOX over and over in this forum we are shutting down cone side of the argument, many commentators on FOX expressed their supporting of legal immigration,
more...
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
2010 i miss you already quotes
saketkapur
01-21 12:57 PM
Hi Guys
As all of us know that the renewal process for EADs will start from end Feb for people who were short changed last year and had lost 3 months on their EAD renewals in EAD. USCIS had issued record number of EADs by June end last year to avoid giving 2 year EADs and those people are coming up for renewal now.
So to me it looks like a pure scam. Move the dates significantly ahead since if the PD is current then they only need to issue 1 year EAD and then move them back next month or so.
Keep milking the cow as current PDs do not neccessarily mean getting green. Just my 2 cents.
regards
Saket
As all of us know that the renewal process for EADs will start from end Feb for people who were short changed last year and had lost 3 months on their EAD renewals in EAD. USCIS had issued record number of EADs by June end last year to avoid giving 2 year EADs and those people are coming up for renewal now.
So to me it looks like a pure scam. Move the dates significantly ahead since if the PD is current then they only need to issue 1 year EAD and then move them back next month or so.
Keep milking the cow as current PDs do not neccessarily mean getting green. Just my 2 cents.
regards
Saket
more...
rackinghengxin
04-21 07:21 AM
I see your point, the topic above is debatable, and however, I am in your corner. Pallet Racking (http://www.rackingchina.com)
hair images i miss you already
Pagal
05-29 01:05 PM
Hello,
Good points, but all are already on IV agenda in one form or another... please visit the IV agenda thread to read what all IV is doing...
Good points, but all are already on IV agenda in one form or another... please visit the IV agenda thread to read what all IV is doing...
more...
.jpeg "i miss you friendship quotes.")
Alien
02-09 11:22 PM
Is Canada an option? Its a safe bet to get it stamped in Canada.You will get your passport back the same day or the next. You shouldnt have any problem related to transit visa as long as you stay inside the airport.Check with the respective consulates.
hot i miss you already quotes.
kavita_abb
10-10 11:24 AM
Thank you very much for all your support.
Do I need to inform him before I leave ? because he is with his relative place. What is the process for that ? If I leave without informing him, then what he can do on me ?
Do I need to inform him before I leave ? because he is with his relative place. What is the process for that ? If I leave without informing him, then what he can do on me ?
more...
house i miss you quotes and sayings
gman
07-08 07:36 PM
Did this ever go anywhere?
tattoo 2010 i miss you already
jonty_11
10-23 01:08 PM
Thanks for ur reply... but i ve already bought the ticket...so shud i buy another one-way ticket :confused:
I guess that is teh only option u have...
I guess that is teh only option u have...
more...
pictures i miss you quotes and sayings
mnq1979
06-26 09:39 AM
I jst got an update on my and my wife I-485; i am not sure what it is about as i have not received the RFE yet.....but i think they are asking for our BC as we did not provide them when we applied for I-485;
I want to know that is it OK if i provide USCIS with the 2 AFFIDEVITS, one for me and one for my wife stating all the information such as Name, Date of Birth, City of Birth, Country of Birth, Mothers Name and Fathers Name.
Gettign the birth certificate is a very long procedure and i dont think i would have them soon. So i was wondering will it be OK if i provide them with the Affidevits. Will USCIS accept it!!!!
Lastly, i would appreciate if some one can give me the template that what text should be included in the affedevit !!!!
Thanks in advance !!!!!
I want to know that is it OK if i provide USCIS with the 2 AFFIDEVITS, one for me and one for my wife stating all the information such as Name, Date of Birth, City of Birth, Country of Birth, Mothers Name and Fathers Name.
Gettign the birth certificate is a very long procedure and i dont think i would have them soon. So i was wondering will it be OK if i provide them with the Affidevits. Will USCIS accept it!!!!
Lastly, i would appreciate if some one can give me the template that what text should be included in the affedevit !!!!
Thanks in advance !!!!!
dresses 2010 i miss you already
InTheMoment
06-16 04:50 PM
I guess the initial question my miguy still remains unanswered.
His question was about the validity period of the card and the start date of that validity period that is printed on that card and not the date when you activate the EAD status.
any answers there ?
His question was about the validity period of the card and the start date of that validity period that is printed on that card and not the date when you activate the EAD status.
any answers there ?
more...
makeup i miss you quotes death.
coopheal
04-12 07:17 PM
If you have an attorney represnted and you ahve signed a G325, you will not get the RFE your lawyer rather would get it...
This is correct. Only your attorney will get the RFE.
This is correct. Only your attorney will get the RFE.
girlfriend Miss U Quotes already found
sertasheep
05-24 09:27 PM
Aman, Shilpa, et al, keep it up.
I mailed the writer, Jenny Johnson at ft.com, and she has said they will issue a correction in the paper. (Just so that no one else sends a duplicate email to her).
(My mail)
Hello Ms. Johnson,
In your article on greencard backlog, the name of the non-profit organization has been incorrectly mentioned. The correct name is Immigration Voice, and not Immigrant Voice.
(Her mail)
My apologies for misstating the group's name. We will issue a correction in the paper.
I mailed the writer, Jenny Johnson at ft.com, and she has said they will issue a correction in the paper. (Just so that no one else sends a duplicate email to her).
(My mail)
Hello Ms. Johnson,
In your article on greencard backlog, the name of the non-profit organization has been incorrectly mentioned. The correct name is Immigration Voice, and not Immigrant Voice.
(Her mail)
My apologies for misstating the group's name. We will issue a correction in the paper.
hairstyles i miss you friendship quotes.
axp817
07-05 11:51 AM
I understand and appreciate people trying to do the whole flower thing, but I am not sure if it will work the way they expect it to.
I once worked in the admissions office at a very selective school. Applicants that didn't get selected resorted to such gimmicks (sending cards, presents, flowers to the dean of admissions), not sure what they expected - The dean to feel bad about his/the dept.'s decision and reconsider?
Anyway, one of my responsibilities was to screen the dept. mail, and sort out what was uselss and trash it.
Chances are, that is what will happen to the flowers sent to USCIS.
I don't mean to discourage anyone, but that money ($25-$40) you spend on flowers, could help IV a lot.
Thanks,
I once worked in the admissions office at a very selective school. Applicants that didn't get selected resorted to such gimmicks (sending cards, presents, flowers to the dean of admissions), not sure what they expected - The dean to feel bad about his/the dept.'s decision and reconsider?
Anyway, one of my responsibilities was to screen the dept. mail, and sort out what was uselss and trash it.
Chances are, that is what will happen to the flowers sent to USCIS.
I don't mean to discourage anyone, but that money ($25-$40) you spend on flowers, could help IV a lot.
Thanks,
EB3June03
06-22 07:24 AM
Thanks for your reply hiralal.
Actually, the PPD was positive due to the BCG vaccination. I have heard so many cases that show positive PPD due to the BCG vaccination.
Until 2008, the USCIS was fine with the X Ray clear after the PPD is positive. That has changed and now they need the size of the induration of the test. I don't have the documentation with me right now.
I agree with you that health is wealth and treatment should be taken (if needed). But, I do want to take un-necessary medicine. I don't have any issue with my health. I have been in the US for 12 years now and have no active symptoms of TB. What is the point in trying to the route where you are NOT needed to?
Actually, the PPD was positive due to the BCG vaccination. I have heard so many cases that show positive PPD due to the BCG vaccination.
Until 2008, the USCIS was fine with the X Ray clear after the PPD is positive. That has changed and now they need the size of the induration of the test. I don't have the documentation with me right now.
I agree with you that health is wealth and treatment should be taken (if needed). But, I do want to take un-necessary medicine. I don't have any issue with my health. I have been in the US for 12 years now and have no active symptoms of TB. What is the point in trying to the route where you are NOT needed to?
glus
05-31 12:52 PM
Thank you to everyone who contributed. Guys, Junior members have contributed, you have to do it too......please do it.
J
J
No comments:
Post a Comment