deardar
09-14 03:49 PM
good!
wallpaper amortization mortgage reverse. amortization mortgage reverse
ramaa
06-21 11:00 PM
Thank you for reply.
Can I request to port 2003 PD at the time of filing 2nd I-140
or
Should I first get 2nd I-140 approved with new 2007 PD and then try to port old 2003 PD while filing for I-485.
Job description, salary does not matter in porting PD. Is there any possible reason CIS may not port the PD though old I-140 is not revoked by employer.
I appreciate your input.
Thanks
Can I request to port 2003 PD at the time of filing 2nd I-140
or
Should I first get 2nd I-140 approved with new 2007 PD and then try to port old 2003 PD while filing for I-485.
Job description, salary does not matter in porting PD. Is there any possible reason CIS may not port the PD though old I-140 is not revoked by employer.
I appreciate your input.
Thanks
txh1b
08-18 02:48 PM
now this is weird... aside from the poster's main question: why does uscis want proof of *continuous employment* since the poster filed for 485? all they should care about is the future job... isnt that right? why do they want employment history?
willIWill, can you please post the exact wording on your RFE regarding that point?
It is not. It is very much relevant to the case as he has not added the spouse to the I485. If the person has not been continuously maintaining the non immigrant visa status, the spouse is out of status as the 485 has not been filed and is not eligible to hold H4 status.
Also, if the person has travelled on as a parolee, USCIS may be interested in that as well. You never know what the IO is getting into when they issue the RFE. Do not judge or give the OP a feeling that the RFE is irrelevant. It is, in many ways.
willIWill, can you please post the exact wording on your RFE regarding that point?
It is not. It is very much relevant to the case as he has not added the spouse to the I485. If the person has not been continuously maintaining the non immigrant visa status, the spouse is out of status as the 485 has not been filed and is not eligible to hold H4 status.
Also, if the person has travelled on as a parolee, USCIS may be interested in that as well. You never know what the IO is getting into when they issue the RFE. Do not judge or give the OP a feeling that the RFE is irrelevant. It is, in many ways.
2011 mortgage amortization
anandrajesh
08-15 01:46 PM
Absolutely right, how otherwise do you explain that they issued card production for people with PD's in 2004, (Dates not current in June) on July 2nd and in an hour and then said the visas are unavailable.
NO FIFO whatsoever.
They just saved themselves by retracting the VB of JULY, or else they would have faced lawsuits, and investigation which would have shown all irregularities and fraud.
One of my buddies got his GC approved yesterday and his Priority Date is June 2005, EB2 India. I am here waiting since 2004 March to file for my I485. There are no methods to USCIS Madness.
NO FIFO whatsoever.
They just saved themselves by retracting the VB of JULY, or else they would have faced lawsuits, and investigation which would have shown all irregularities and fraud.
One of my buddies got his GC approved yesterday and his Priority Date is June 2005, EB2 India. I am here waiting since 2004 March to file for my I485. There are no methods to USCIS Madness.
more...
sapking
12-21 12:09 AM
I think she should be apprised of pains in getting green cards for skilled workers from India, by ImmigrationVoice.
go_guy123
01-11 09:47 AM
The second part also sounds pretty reasonable to me:
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This is still riddled with amnesty....more punitive versions will surely come which the democratic party will oppose for sure.
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This is still riddled with amnesty....more punitive versions will surely come which the democratic party will oppose for sure.
more...
nixstor
02-23 02:33 PM
What if I-140 is approved , and the primary applicant (H1) is waiting for the PD to be current, and the dependent wants to go to school. Will this have any impact on the GC process?
Shirish,
I guess you are in VA. My wife is in School at Mason. She is on H-4 as well. Send me an email or call me if you need more info regarding this. I can give you more info if this is with regards to Mason.
Shirish,
I guess you are in VA. My wife is in School at Mason. She is on H-4 as well. Send me an email or call me if you need more info regarding this. I can give you more info if this is with regards to Mason.
2010 amortization mortgage reverse.
intheyan
08-14 06:42 PM
Congrads. Did your dependent got approved I-485?
more...
suva321
01-20 07:34 PM
From Nov 14th 2008 verything got changed, now first they issue one year
after that you need apply again for 10 years.
after that you need apply again for 10 years.
hair amortization mortgage reverse.
ragz4u
05-09 02:04 PM
Anyone from Philly interested to car pool?
more...
chi_shark
08-20 03:07 PM
you are dreaming about points 1 and 2 as marked in your post below. democracy is about govt by the people for the people. got nada to do with taxation. Maybe you live near washington dc and are confused with what they write there on the asses of their cars. 2. people who earn a living from your tax dollars are answerable only to constituents... and you my friend are not a constituent until you become a citizen with voting rights.
have fun flaming me back. ;-)
I agree with rajuram. We are all tax payers. 1. The whole concept of democracy is taxation with representation. 2. People who get paid from my tax dollars are answerable to me as much as they are to anyone else. Even when cis is not forcing me to file gc, its still equally answerable to me for my tax dollars to tell me why they are not doing their jobs properly. And for that cis owes us all apology. What's wrong with that?
have fun flaming me back. ;-)
I agree with rajuram. We are all tax payers. 1. The whole concept of democracy is taxation with representation. 2. People who get paid from my tax dollars are answerable to me as much as they are to anyone else. Even when cis is not forcing me to file gc, its still equally answerable to me for my tax dollars to tell me why they are not doing their jobs properly. And for that cis owes us all apology. What's wrong with that?
hot amortization mortgage reverse.
kumar1
03-03 12:19 PM
Desi, Thanks for the translation, it was very helpful. However, I failed to find in this document anywhere that a PD obtained from EB application can not be ported to an FB category.
Main line is this -
In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b) (1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date.
Translation -
If person has multiple approved I-140 petitions under EB-1, EB-2, and Eb-3 sections, he./she can claim the earliest PD date to any of his/her I-140 approved petitions.
An example taken from Michael Aytes Memo (09/12/2006), section 22.2(d)(3) page 28:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Main line is this -
In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b) (1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date.
Translation -
If person has multiple approved I-140 petitions under EB-1, EB-2, and Eb-3 sections, he./she can claim the earliest PD date to any of his/her I-140 approved petitions.
An example taken from Michael Aytes Memo (09/12/2006), section 22.2(d)(3) page 28:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
more...
house loan amortization schedule
ravi.shah
02-07 11:01 AM
link??
Live Video - C-SPAN2 | C-SPAN (http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/)
Live Video - C-SPAN2 | C-SPAN (http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/)
tattoo amortization mortgage reverse. amortization mortgage reverse
chanduv23
04-27 10:15 AM
Ok, lets ignore or shut this down.
more...
pictures amortization mortgage reverse. amortization mortgage reverse
perm2gc
07-08 10:00 PM
Wonderful support. Thank you. So far we have over 850 viewings and have been rated 76 times and 23 comments. That has managed to push us to #6 in the News and Politics stories of the day. This morning we overtook a Ron Paul story. If you have not had a chance to check the video out, please rate it by clicking on the stars or leave a comment as that will push our position even further.
Thank you once again. My son is beginning to get quite optimistic that CNN might just pick this one :-)
This video has either been removed or has a malformed URL
Thank you once again. My son is beginning to get quite optimistic that CNN might just pick this one :-)
This video has either been removed or has a malformed URL
dresses reverse mortgage house
asiandude2
05-17 10:12 PM
Ammendment 4005 to CIR by Cornyn under the SKIL ACT states that:
(b) LABOR CERTIFICATIONS.--Section 212(a)(5)(A)(ii) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(A)(ii)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I);
(2) by striking the period at the end of sub- clause (II) and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
(III) is a member of the professions and has a master's degree or higher from an accredited United States university or has been awarded medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience in the United States.''.
We already know that following people are exempt from obtaining Labor Certifications for Green Card Processing:
(I) is a member of the teaching profession, or
(II) has exceptional ability in the sciences or the arts.
If this Cornyn amendment passes does it mean that people with "a master's degree or higher from an accredited United States university or has been awarded medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience in the United States.'' will also be exempt from obtaining LC for Green card processing.
(b) LABOR CERTIFICATIONS.--Section 212(a)(5)(A)(ii) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(A)(ii)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I);
(2) by striking the period at the end of sub- clause (II) and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
(III) is a member of the professions and has a master's degree or higher from an accredited United States university or has been awarded medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience in the United States.''.
We already know that following people are exempt from obtaining Labor Certifications for Green Card Processing:
(I) is a member of the teaching profession, or
(II) has exceptional ability in the sciences or the arts.
If this Cornyn amendment passes does it mean that people with "a master's degree or higher from an accredited United States university or has been awarded medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience in the United States.'' will also be exempt from obtaining LC for Green card processing.
more...
makeup an amortization schedule
lazycis
10-04 12:55 PM
Is there and on going class action lawsuit? and if there is where can I get info to join. I filed for a k3 visa a year and 110 days ago. Till this day USCIS still wont approve my applications because they say that we are stuck in bacgkroud checks. I dont understand how people that field way after me already have their spouse here while I have been waiting for over a year and we still dont have the NOA2. What can I do, where can I joint o get help. Is there a class action going on for this?
Unfortunately there is no class action for your case. It's hard to file a class action for mandamus suit as the circumstances of each case are different (i.e. different waiting time). But you definitely can file an action for yourself and defend yourself from the injustice. Check this court order, it may be helpful
http://immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16325&d=1179385606
Unfortunately there is no class action for your case. It's hard to file a class action for mandamus suit as the circumstances of each case are different (i.e. different waiting time). But you definitely can file an action for yourself and defend yourself from the injustice. Check this court order, it may be helpful
http://immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16325&d=1179385606
girlfriend Your Mortgage Or Invest In
dhiru
08-03 03:16 PM
I have similar issue, I have applied for the EAD renewal on May 18th and received the notice on May 24th. My EAD is expiring on August 18th, and still have not heard back from USCIS. I have called the USCIS on July 26th and opened a service request, but it got rejected asking me to wait for 90 business days. What are my options ?
a. Can I still keep working?
b. Should I quit my job?
c. Can I take unpaid vacation?
Please help...
Thnx.
a. Can I still keep working?
b. Should I quit my job?
c. Can I take unpaid vacation?
Please help...
Thnx.
hairstyles amortization mortgage reverse. amortization mortgage reverse
chanduv23
11-06 07:46 AM
My Mother in law flew with them, and her experience was good.
How old are your folks? Sometimes, this may sound a bit cheesy, but getting wheelchair always helps. What that does is, it guarantees your folks will be at the correct gates, at right times.
I got her a wheelchair, and she had a smooth transition.....
hope that helps...
Thanks for the response, they are 57 and 53 years and healthy, will it make sense to request for a wheelchair? Maybe we can request for one of them :)
How old are your folks? Sometimes, this may sound a bit cheesy, but getting wheelchair always helps. What that does is, it guarantees your folks will be at the correct gates, at right times.
I got her a wheelchair, and she had a smooth transition.....
hope that helps...
Thanks for the response, they are 57 and 53 years and healthy, will it make sense to request for a wheelchair? Maybe we can request for one of them :)
desi3933
06-21 10:30 AM
In case the I-485 is filed concurrently with I-140 or on the basis of a I-140 "pending approval", if the "I-140" is rejected (say because it was incorrectly classified as EB-2 when it should have been EB-3), then is the I-485 also automatically rejected? (My guess: YES)
If this happens to you, does this mean you may not be able to resubmit I-485 if your "priority date" is not current at the time you came to know it got rejected? (My guess: YES... and this is a scary scenario.)
Finally, if the I-140 (EB2) is mentions the requirement to be "BS + 5 years of post BS experience", but the the reviewing officer thinks that the 140 application is not supported by "proper" evidence of 5 years of progressive post BS experience.... then would it generate an RFE or would it straightaway cause a rejection of the I-140?
Experts, please comment. I may have to face this scenario.
Thanks!
Abhijit
Contribution so far: $100
Unless you have another I-140 (or I-130) that can be used to support I-485, there is good chance that I-485 will be denied.
Not a legal advice.
If this happens to you, does this mean you may not be able to resubmit I-485 if your "priority date" is not current at the time you came to know it got rejected? (My guess: YES... and this is a scary scenario.)
Finally, if the I-140 (EB2) is mentions the requirement to be "BS + 5 years of post BS experience", but the the reviewing officer thinks that the 140 application is not supported by "proper" evidence of 5 years of progressive post BS experience.... then would it generate an RFE or would it straightaway cause a rejection of the I-140?
Experts, please comment. I may have to face this scenario.
Thanks!
Abhijit
Contribution so far: $100
Unless you have another I-140 (or I-130) that can be used to support I-485, there is good chance that I-485 will be denied.
Not a legal advice.
Maverick1
11-16 01:45 PM
Let me restate to make sure I understood your question right :
Are you currently working as described in "A" and going to join a job as described in "B" ?
They don't look similar to me. If your LC was files verbatim as described in "A" and the new job description from your new employer is going to be as described in "B" you will have an issue.
As always the standard disclaimer : Take a legal advise. But it appears even to a lay man that they are not same/similar as described by you.
Do the following job descriptions qualify for AC21 provided all other factors such as salary and 485 pending for 180+ days have been met
Job A: Techincal Consultant
- Configures and implements risk management solutions using ASP.NET, VB.NET, XML, XSLT/XPATH.
- Basic working understanding of SQL Server, Oracle and related query language and tools
- Consulting development experience in IT or Systems Integration
- Excellent communication skills; written and verbal.
Job B: Project Manager
- Accomplishes project objectives by planning and evaluating project activities.
- Creates and executes project work plans and revises as appropriate to meet changing needs and requirements
- Identifies resources needed and assigns individual responsibilities.
- Manages day-to-day operational aspects of a project and scope.
- Reviews deliverables prepared by team before passing to client.
etc etc.
On promotion with the same employer, i will have responsibilities for job B but i am looking to change employers. can i join new employer with job B and use AC21 ?
Are you currently working as described in "A" and going to join a job as described in "B" ?
They don't look similar to me. If your LC was files verbatim as described in "A" and the new job description from your new employer is going to be as described in "B" you will have an issue.
As always the standard disclaimer : Take a legal advise. But it appears even to a lay man that they are not same/similar as described by you.
Do the following job descriptions qualify for AC21 provided all other factors such as salary and 485 pending for 180+ days have been met
Job A: Techincal Consultant
- Configures and implements risk management solutions using ASP.NET, VB.NET, XML, XSLT/XPATH.
- Basic working understanding of SQL Server, Oracle and related query language and tools
- Consulting development experience in IT or Systems Integration
- Excellent communication skills; written and verbal.
Job B: Project Manager
- Accomplishes project objectives by planning and evaluating project activities.
- Creates and executes project work plans and revises as appropriate to meet changing needs and requirements
- Identifies resources needed and assigns individual responsibilities.
- Manages day-to-day operational aspects of a project and scope.
- Reviews deliverables prepared by team before passing to client.
etc etc.
On promotion with the same employer, i will have responsibilities for job B but i am looking to change employers. can i join new employer with job B and use AC21 ?
