chi_shark
10-03 04:37 PM
i asked the exact same question to my lawyer... she had no evidence or past precedents... i doubt if any lawyer will have it...
the thing to note here is this: more often than not, your 485 will get approved (if your case is approvable) without any issues in the normal course... the question of denial comes ONLY IF there is an RFE and then ONLY IF IO is not satisfied with your RFE and he calls you over for an interview and then ONLY IF he is not satisfied with answers you give in interview. Taking a wild guess, we are talking about maybe small percentage of folks going to the RFE stage and fraction of that going to interview and a fraction of that actually getting denials... if people have other complications such as basic legalities in their business/self-employment or any other issues such as no pay for long time etc... then i suspect they may get denied whether self employed or not.... but if all is clear, then it should be very minimal...
GREAT I SAY! What do you think?
Do we have any conclusive evidence of these cases? Have we seen prior cases being approved using this approach?
the thing to note here is this: more often than not, your 485 will get approved (if your case is approvable) without any issues in the normal course... the question of denial comes ONLY IF there is an RFE and then ONLY IF IO is not satisfied with your RFE and he calls you over for an interview and then ONLY IF he is not satisfied with answers you give in interview. Taking a wild guess, we are talking about maybe small percentage of folks going to the RFE stage and fraction of that going to interview and a fraction of that actually getting denials... if people have other complications such as basic legalities in their business/self-employment or any other issues such as no pay for long time etc... then i suspect they may get denied whether self employed or not.... but if all is clear, then it should be very minimal...
GREAT I SAY! What do you think?
Do we have any conclusive evidence of these cases? Have we seen prior cases being approved using this approach?
wallpaper Jaguar-S-Type 2008 car photo
bheemi
04-03 10:53 AM
Thanks Admin..I can understand..we can only try ..I am happy that IV is trying..\
ksrk
01-15 06:03 PM
Note that when you call Customer Support, they recognize Receive Date what you see in your online status as "...your case was received on...", which may be quite different than RD on your receipt. [/QUOTE]
Yes, I agree - my experience has been the same. The customer service representative insisted the receive date was whatever showed up in the online status, even though it was ~45 days after the receipt date printed on my receipt notice.
Btw, I have a question about background/namecheck. I remember reading someplace (official) that fingerprints are valid for a period of 15 months. Now imagine this - at the end of that period, you are fingerprinted again, and while the background/namecheck is in progress the "annual lottery" period opens up in Jul/Aug/Sept. Is that file skipped again since background check is pending?
Regardless of what laws USCIS vouches for, I believe this is what happened during last year "lottery season" in Aug/Sept. My background check was completed and entered in the system mid-Aug., while the USCIS ran out of visa numbers a week or two later.
Yes, I agree - my experience has been the same. The customer service representative insisted the receive date was whatever showed up in the online status, even though it was ~45 days after the receipt date printed on my receipt notice.
Btw, I have a question about background/namecheck. I remember reading someplace (official) that fingerprints are valid for a period of 15 months. Now imagine this - at the end of that period, you are fingerprinted again, and while the background/namecheck is in progress the "annual lottery" period opens up in Jul/Aug/Sept. Is that file skipped again since background check is pending?
Regardless of what laws USCIS vouches for, I believe this is what happened during last year "lottery season" in Aug/Sept. My background check was completed and entered in the system mid-Aug., while the USCIS ran out of visa numbers a week or two later.
2011 03JagSTR#39; 2003 Jaguar S-Type
chi_shark
10-01 01:54 PM
it depends on the individual hospital... your downside is only your wife getting fired... which might not really happen unless your wife supplies 100 A grade nurses to the directly competing hospital across the street... if she does that, anyway she wont care for the job.... :-) all the best... let us know how it goes...
Hi,
My wife is doing residency using her EAD and she wanted to start a medical staffing company. Would there be any problem from the 'hospitals' since she is working as full time employee or is it depending on the individual hospital contract?
Please help me out if anybody has an idea.
Thanks.
Hi,
My wife is doing residency using her EAD and she wanted to start a medical staffing company. Would there be any problem from the 'hospitals' since she is working as full time employee or is it depending on the individual hospital contract?
Please help me out if anybody has an idea.
Thanks.
more...
kittu1991
08-26 05:39 PM
[/B]
It may sound crazy, 2nd biometrics may not be good sign when dates are current. I had my 2nd FP in June09. I spoke with IO out of curiousity to know of any update- more so to know whether my case is pre-adjudicated (as there was lot of roar on recent preadjudication). IO told me my 'NC is pending'. I told her that around this time, last year, I was repeated told on infopass and on phone that my NC/BC etc is cleared and case waiting for Visa#. She that that is true but 2ND FP TRIGGERs NC and unless they get clearance they have to wait for 180 days before my case is ready for adjudication.
Is that how it works? I was under the impression if the name check is cleared once (or rotten after 6 months) we are good. Hoping that IO gave you a wrong information.
Anybody know more about this. :confused:
It may sound crazy, 2nd biometrics may not be good sign when dates are current. I had my 2nd FP in June09. I spoke with IO out of curiousity to know of any update- more so to know whether my case is pre-adjudicated (as there was lot of roar on recent preadjudication). IO told me my 'NC is pending'. I told her that around this time, last year, I was repeated told on infopass and on phone that my NC/BC etc is cleared and case waiting for Visa#. She that that is true but 2ND FP TRIGGERs NC and unless they get clearance they have to wait for 180 days before my case is ready for adjudication.
Is that how it works? I was under the impression if the name check is cleared once (or rotten after 6 months) we are good. Hoping that IO gave you a wrong information.
Anybody know more about this. :confused:
logiclife
05-29 11:14 AM
Kavya Shivshankar won the spelling bee 2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/28/national.spelling.bee/
I watched the entire fiinal. Apart from kavya my favorites were Kyle Mou and Tim ruiter. This was Kyle's last chance, but I hope Tim wins next year.
Just thinking aloud : Out of 11 finalist 8 were kids of immigrant parents (7 of them indian). is it just co-incidence ?
I hope after watching this, americans should now have no doubts that imiigrants are here not because they work for less but because they are good at what they do and they are hard working people.
This whole spelling bee thing is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. By any standards, it is pure and simple torture to subject the kids to memorizing thousands of words and their stupid spellings. And what use is that? Have they never heard of something called SPELL-CHECK in Microsoft Word and other email services ?
Or are they afraid that their kid will go to a job interview and someone might ask them to spell the word that no one on the planet ever uses and is only present in the Oxford Dictionary.
Those who subject their kids to such a regimented, rigorous, scripted childhood are preparing a next generation of work-force that would only know how to follow the orders and accept directions.
85 % of the fortune 500 CEOs are not MBAs. And the other 15% that have an MBA, only 3 of the 15 have done MBA from an IVY LEAGUE school.
What that tells you is that too much education and scholarly childhood increases your job security, in that sense that you will never be unemployed, but it decreases the chances that you will be on the top or you will be a billionaire.
The biggest prize goes NOT TO people who can follow directions and know everything, but who can GIVE directions and get things done.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/28/national.spelling.bee/
I watched the entire fiinal. Apart from kavya my favorites were Kyle Mou and Tim ruiter. This was Kyle's last chance, but I hope Tim wins next year.
Just thinking aloud : Out of 11 finalist 8 were kids of immigrant parents (7 of them indian). is it just co-incidence ?
I hope after watching this, americans should now have no doubts that imiigrants are here not because they work for less but because they are good at what they do and they are hard working people.
This whole spelling bee thing is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. By any standards, it is pure and simple torture to subject the kids to memorizing thousands of words and their stupid spellings. And what use is that? Have they never heard of something called SPELL-CHECK in Microsoft Word and other email services ?
Or are they afraid that their kid will go to a job interview and someone might ask them to spell the word that no one on the planet ever uses and is only present in the Oxford Dictionary.
Those who subject their kids to such a regimented, rigorous, scripted childhood are preparing a next generation of work-force that would only know how to follow the orders and accept directions.
85 % of the fortune 500 CEOs are not MBAs. And the other 15% that have an MBA, only 3 of the 15 have done MBA from an IVY LEAGUE school.
What that tells you is that too much education and scholarly childhood increases your job security, in that sense that you will never be unemployed, but it decreases the chances that you will be on the top or you will be a billionaire.
The biggest prize goes NOT TO people who can follow directions and know everything, but who can GIVE directions and get things done.
more...
texcan
08-28 07:23 PM
TSC
For Primary
Renewal EAD applied : June 18th
CPO Email received: Aug 27rd
For spouse
Renewal EAD applied : June 26th
CPO Email received: Aug 23rd
For Primary
Renewal EAD applied : June 18th
CPO Email received: Aug 27rd
For spouse
Renewal EAD applied : June 26th
CPO Email received: Aug 23rd
2010 2008 JAGUAR S-TYPE
zoho
08-27 02:42 AM
my spouse is in india and her AP is going to expire in a week .
What are the option to apply for AP from while she is in india.
thanks
zoho
What are the option to apply for AP from while she is in india.
thanks
zoho
more...
Leo07
11-08 04:56 PM
LOL...dude in the last two days you have 'united' the members/visitors of IV...alike for your Red dots....
Way to go Brother!
Way to go Brother!
hair Jaguar S-Type
aadimanav
08-22 02:27 PM
Mar 05 is my live PD. I mean i had other PD's in past but they were substituted.
What is the Point aadimanav ?
No point man. It was just a friendly question.
What is the Point aadimanav ?
No point man. It was just a friendly question.
more...
where_is_gc
07-10 12:07 PM
http://rodeo.cincinnati.com/getlocal/gpstory.aspx?id=100110&sid=115119
hot Picture of 2005 Jaguar S-Type
john2255
07-21 08:27 AM
What you should do immediately.
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
more...
house 2008 Jaguar S-Type
Bpositive
09-05 01:52 PM
you should possibly also carry a copy of the AP application. At least my application clearly stated that travel was for business/personal reasons...
I am sorry you had a bad experience...possibly because of the officer's ignorance...worth a complaint...maybe you can draft something with your lawyer....don't just ignore such bad behavior...
I have travelled on AP and didn't have any problems..although the officer stamped a wrong date (one day earlier) on my passport..talk about incompetence
I am sorry you had a bad experience...possibly because of the officer's ignorance...worth a complaint...maybe you can draft something with your lawyer....don't just ignore such bad behavior...
I have travelled on AP and didn't have any problems..although the officer stamped a wrong date (one day earlier) on my passport..talk about incompetence
tattoo Images of 2008 Jaguar S-Type
ramus
10-14 06:30 AM
Anybody received rfe? We received rfe on photos and was replied on 09/27.. No reply yet.
Anybody knows how long it take to receive approval after rfe reply..
Anybody knows how long it take to receive approval after rfe reply..
more...
pictures 2008 Jaguar S-Type R Photos
kondur_007
09-22 05:35 PM
LOA...means I am still employed without benefits ...at my old company.
what you said makes sense..this is how I am looking at it
-join new company
-donot send in ac 21 paperwork
-if i have rfe send in paperwork from present employer which will only be a generic letter----(i don't know how much detail uscis likes)
-the reason i want to do LOA is that this way i will be sure they will not revoke i -140
-what do the gurus feel ?
BTW--gave u green --thanks for the reply
I think your plan may work out just fine. I would make a couple of suggestions:
1. If you are taking LOA from original employer, for practical purposes (for USCIS), you are not employed with that employer any more (they go by pay stubs). But if doing so helps to avoid revocation of 140, go ahead and do it that way.
2. Because you will actually get your pay check from new employer, you are employed by them (and you will work on EAD with them, make sure that this is mentioned on your I-9 form). No matter how much ignorant your employer is, they will have to have I-9 on file and it must have your EAD (not H1).
3. After doing this, you will be on I 485 pending status (no longer on H status), and so make sure you have current EAD and AP all the time.
4. If something goes wrong with your I 485 (very unlikely); you will have to leave the country and enter back on H visa and work for H visa sponsoring employer (probably your old employer).
5. It is perfectly fine to not file AC21. AC21 is needed only if you do not plan to join original sponsoring employer after GC approval. However, if you do want to file AC21, you do not need much documentation from your new employer. It just needs the simple letter stating your job position as a "physician" and brief job duties (briefer the better!) and salary (should be proportional or higher). If you do not file AC21, you may just keep that documentation on file with your attorney (which I would do to be on safe side). The implication of having this is as follows:
--If you have this documentation (even if not filed with USCIS), at the time of approval of your GC you will have the option of just staying with new employer or going back to original employer.
--If you do not have this, you will have to go back to original employer after GC approval with a "good faith intention of permanent job".
PM me if you have questions about what I said above, and I will be happy to talk to you.
Good Luck.
what you said makes sense..this is how I am looking at it
-join new company
-donot send in ac 21 paperwork
-if i have rfe send in paperwork from present employer which will only be a generic letter----(i don't know how much detail uscis likes)
-the reason i want to do LOA is that this way i will be sure they will not revoke i -140
-what do the gurus feel ?
BTW--gave u green --thanks for the reply
I think your plan may work out just fine. I would make a couple of suggestions:
1. If you are taking LOA from original employer, for practical purposes (for USCIS), you are not employed with that employer any more (they go by pay stubs). But if doing so helps to avoid revocation of 140, go ahead and do it that way.
2. Because you will actually get your pay check from new employer, you are employed by them (and you will work on EAD with them, make sure that this is mentioned on your I-9 form). No matter how much ignorant your employer is, they will have to have I-9 on file and it must have your EAD (not H1).
3. After doing this, you will be on I 485 pending status (no longer on H status), and so make sure you have current EAD and AP all the time.
4. If something goes wrong with your I 485 (very unlikely); you will have to leave the country and enter back on H visa and work for H visa sponsoring employer (probably your old employer).
5. It is perfectly fine to not file AC21. AC21 is needed only if you do not plan to join original sponsoring employer after GC approval. However, if you do want to file AC21, you do not need much documentation from your new employer. It just needs the simple letter stating your job position as a "physician" and brief job duties (briefer the better!) and salary (should be proportional or higher). If you do not file AC21, you may just keep that documentation on file with your attorney (which I would do to be on safe side). The implication of having this is as follows:
--If you have this documentation (even if not filed with USCIS), at the time of approval of your GC you will have the option of just staying with new employer or going back to original employer.
--If you do not have this, you will have to go back to original employer after GC approval with a "good faith intention of permanent job".
PM me if you have questions about what I said above, and I will be happy to talk to you.
Good Luck.
dresses 2008 Jaguar S-type with
ThinkTwice
09-21 01:58 PM
"Preaching to the choir = that the people you are trying to convince already believe in what you are saying."
and I thought we had a disagreement ....
nevermind....i am preaching to the choir.
and I thought we had a disagreement ....
nevermind....i am preaching to the choir.
more...
makeup 2008 jaguar s type.
hopefull
05-24 04:39 PM
EVEN THOUGH WE WILL NOT SAY IT
FIRST UK and now the US
UK kicked out Indian doctors. They also implemented laws which make it difficult for the resident Indians in the UK to marry in India and get their spouses in.
Now its the USA - THEY wont be far behind. Australia will ofcourse follow suit.
PATTERN - WHITE & ANTI SEMITISM
THEY WANT SLAVES WHY CAN WORK FOR THEM FOR FREE. THEY WANT TO PORTRAY THEMSELVES AS ANGELS TO THE BROWN MAN WHICH THEY ARE NOT. Modus Operandi - Spoil the current scene more than it is currently spoiled hence the current situation will look good. Though the current scene is just as bad as can be.
THEY THESE HYPOCRITES GO ONTO THE TV AND BARK
WE ARE A MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY (Read Brits & Europeans all White)
WE ARE AN IMMIGRANT NATION (Yeah right what VISA did the Europeans have when they launched GENOCIDE against the NATIVE AMERICANS)
WE ARE EQUAL OPPURTUNITY EMPLOYERS (READ PREFER WHITE ONLY IN THE WORST CASE WHEN THE DUMBEST OF US CANT EVEN FIGURE OUT WHAT A SYNTAX IS DO WE MAKE A HALF HEARTED ATTEMPT TO HIRE A BROWN MAN). But BY THE WAY the farms need CHERRY PICKERS.
WE HAVE GIVEN SO MUCH TO THE DEVELOPING WORLD McDonalds, Coke & Pepsi (TAKEN MORE THE DEVELOPING WORLD SUCKED IT DRY)
IF THEY ARE JUST SO UPRIGHT ABOUT BEING WHITE WHY DO THEY USE ZERO it was DEVELOPED in INDIA. SHOULD HAVE A FUCKING PATENT on ZERO AND SHOULD GET ROYALTY on it for EVERY TIME A SENATOR APPOSING IMMIGRATION USES IT TO CALCULATE SOMETHING. IF ONE OF YOU IS READING "YOU HAVE NO RIGHT ON THE ZERO START USING THE ROMAN NUMERALS MR. SENATOR, THE ZERO IS INDIAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY"
PISSED AND MAD AS CAN BE.
IF THE BILL GOES AGAINST US I SWEAR ILL BOYCOTT ALL US MADE PRODUCTS OR EVEN IF THEY HOLD ANY EQUITY IN THE FIRM THAT SELLS ITS PRODUCTS IN INDIA.
FIRST UK and now the US
UK kicked out Indian doctors. They also implemented laws which make it difficult for the resident Indians in the UK to marry in India and get their spouses in.
Now its the USA - THEY wont be far behind. Australia will ofcourse follow suit.
PATTERN - WHITE & ANTI SEMITISM
THEY WANT SLAVES WHY CAN WORK FOR THEM FOR FREE. THEY WANT TO PORTRAY THEMSELVES AS ANGELS TO THE BROWN MAN WHICH THEY ARE NOT. Modus Operandi - Spoil the current scene more than it is currently spoiled hence the current situation will look good. Though the current scene is just as bad as can be.
THEY THESE HYPOCRITES GO ONTO THE TV AND BARK
WE ARE A MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY (Read Brits & Europeans all White)
WE ARE AN IMMIGRANT NATION (Yeah right what VISA did the Europeans have when they launched GENOCIDE against the NATIVE AMERICANS)
WE ARE EQUAL OPPURTUNITY EMPLOYERS (READ PREFER WHITE ONLY IN THE WORST CASE WHEN THE DUMBEST OF US CANT EVEN FIGURE OUT WHAT A SYNTAX IS DO WE MAKE A HALF HEARTED ATTEMPT TO HIRE A BROWN MAN). But BY THE WAY the farms need CHERRY PICKERS.
WE HAVE GIVEN SO MUCH TO THE DEVELOPING WORLD McDonalds, Coke & Pepsi (TAKEN MORE THE DEVELOPING WORLD SUCKED IT DRY)
IF THEY ARE JUST SO UPRIGHT ABOUT BEING WHITE WHY DO THEY USE ZERO it was DEVELOPED in INDIA. SHOULD HAVE A FUCKING PATENT on ZERO AND SHOULD GET ROYALTY on it for EVERY TIME A SENATOR APPOSING IMMIGRATION USES IT TO CALCULATE SOMETHING. IF ONE OF YOU IS READING "YOU HAVE NO RIGHT ON THE ZERO START USING THE ROMAN NUMERALS MR. SENATOR, THE ZERO IS INDIAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY"
PISSED AND MAD AS CAN BE.
IF THE BILL GOES AGAINST US I SWEAR ILL BOYCOTT ALL US MADE PRODUCTS OR EVEN IF THEY HOLD ANY EQUITY IN THE FIRM THAT SELLS ITS PRODUCTS IN INDIA.
girlfriend 2008 jaguar s type.
tnite
06-18 12:04 PM
What is your point, Tnite? EAD and AP can filed/issued even if the PD is retrogressed. MY PD was retrogressed after I filed I-485 and EAD and AP were issued?
----------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
my point is if dates retrogress and if processing EAD's and AP's takes a long time getting a EAD might be easy in the first 60-90 days but renewals will become more difficult.
its ok for folks that are within their 6 yrs of H1b but for others it will be a big head ache. As someone already mentioned earlier, you might have to apply for your renewal EAD the day after you get your 1st EAD and so on.
----------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
my point is if dates retrogress and if processing EAD's and AP's takes a long time getting a EAD might be easy in the first 60-90 days but renewals will become more difficult.
its ok for folks that are within their 6 yrs of H1b but for others it will be a big head ache. As someone already mentioned earlier, you might have to apply for your renewal EAD the day after you get your 1st EAD and so on.
hairstyles 2008 JAGUAR S-TYPE 4dr Sdn 3.0
roseball
02-12 02:05 AM
**************
- Labor was filed with a minimum requirement as Masters degree. No alternate degree requirement or equivalency was mentioned. --> just found out that it did say BS+ 5 exp is ok - USCIS mistakenly approved the I-140 (I am assuming OP does not have a US Masters and only has masters equivalent or BS + 5 yrs)
- Sponsoring employer revoked approved I-140
- USCIS checked the I-140 and realized it made a mistake in initial I-140 approval
- USCIS denied the pending I-485 based on incorrect I-140 approval
If all of the above is correct, then I doubt if anything can be done. I dont see any grounds to file MTR based on the fact that beneficiary does not have a US Masters degree which is the requirement as indicated in LC filing. I dont think you can do anything with respect to USCIS's mistake in approving I-140 earlier and now denying it. Got to wait and see what the attorney's view is in this regard.
**********
Since the application do say BS+5 years and I have copy of the Edu evaluation which says Master equivalent , I do see a good chance now to re-open the case .
Mine is not a labor substitute. ( just to clarify)
Thanks
-vinod
That one phrase in your LC requirement could turn out to be a life saver for you. Can you further clarify the educational/experience requirements mentioned in LC. Was it Masters or equivalent with zero experience OR Bachelors with 5 yrs of progressive experience? Your educational evaluation should meet atleast one of the requirements mentioned in the LC. Either Masters or Bachelors + 5 yrs exp. I think for your educational background (non 4 yr BS degree), I feel more comfortable with getting the evaluation done to satisfy the BS + 5 yrs requirement rather than going for Masters equivalent. NSC is known to be strict w.r.t 3 yr BS degree when it comes to EB-2 cases. However, since your initial evaluation showed you as holding a masters equivalent, I am not sure if its a good idea now to try to defend your case with BS + 5 yrs equivalence. A good attorney would be able to guide you through with this. I also suggest you to consult any reputed attorney regarding this and get feedback on your company attorney's plans and not just blindly follow what your company attorney says.
- Labor was filed with a minimum requirement as Masters degree. No alternate degree requirement or equivalency was mentioned. --> just found out that it did say BS+ 5 exp is ok - USCIS mistakenly approved the I-140 (I am assuming OP does not have a US Masters and only has masters equivalent or BS + 5 yrs)
- Sponsoring employer revoked approved I-140
- USCIS checked the I-140 and realized it made a mistake in initial I-140 approval
- USCIS denied the pending I-485 based on incorrect I-140 approval
If all of the above is correct, then I doubt if anything can be done. I dont see any grounds to file MTR based on the fact that beneficiary does not have a US Masters degree which is the requirement as indicated in LC filing. I dont think you can do anything with respect to USCIS's mistake in approving I-140 earlier and now denying it. Got to wait and see what the attorney's view is in this regard.
**********
Since the application do say BS+5 years and I have copy of the Edu evaluation which says Master equivalent , I do see a good chance now to re-open the case .
Mine is not a labor substitute. ( just to clarify)
Thanks
-vinod
That one phrase in your LC requirement could turn out to be a life saver for you. Can you further clarify the educational/experience requirements mentioned in LC. Was it Masters or equivalent with zero experience OR Bachelors with 5 yrs of progressive experience? Your educational evaluation should meet atleast one of the requirements mentioned in the LC. Either Masters or Bachelors + 5 yrs exp. I think for your educational background (non 4 yr BS degree), I feel more comfortable with getting the evaluation done to satisfy the BS + 5 yrs requirement rather than going for Masters equivalent. NSC is known to be strict w.r.t 3 yr BS degree when it comes to EB-2 cases. However, since your initial evaluation showed you as holding a masters equivalent, I am not sure if its a good idea now to try to defend your case with BS + 5 yrs equivalence. A good attorney would be able to guide you through with this. I also suggest you to consult any reputed attorney regarding this and get feedback on your company attorney's plans and not just blindly follow what your company attorney says.
akred
07-04 11:33 PM
If both parents are Indian citizens, then the child is eligible for primary citizenship of India.
This is not true. The Indian citizenship rules were changed sometime in 2003 so that children are not eligible citizenship if the birth was not registered within 1 year or if the child has taken some other passport. These children can get Indian citizenship only after attaining 18 years and renouncing the foreign citizenship.
I think like many Indian government rules, the OCI rules have not been thought out properly.
This is not true. The Indian citizenship rules were changed sometime in 2003 so that children are not eligible citizenship if the birth was not registered within 1 year or if the child has taken some other passport. These children can get Indian citizenship only after attaining 18 years and renouncing the foreign citizenship.
I think like many Indian government rules, the OCI rules have not been thought out properly.
McLuvin
04-02 02:55 PM
All the dates in all the chargeability areas will become current and USCIS will recogonize all the people as people and not files. They will also issue a huge apology for all the delays in the past.
Dude, you forgot the most important point....
After apology/providing GC, they are going to provide settlement assistance as a welcome gift....
Dude, you forgot the most important point....
After apology/providing GC, they are going to provide settlement assistance as a welcome gift....
