DarkChild
03-08 02:21 AM
Dark Child has no votes, someones gotta vote for him, hes got a really good layout.
thx man :thumb:
but it doesn't matter that much, dave's is better, i can handle that ;)
thx man :thumb:
but it doesn't matter that much, dave's is better, i can handle that ;)
wallpaper These Photoshop wallpaper
jonty_11
07-16 05:10 PM
I think people out here have nothing to do. Please concentrate on the cor eissues... and participate in IV campaigns..High FIVE for one...
When new processign dates come out you will know have patience.
When new processign dates come out you will know have patience.
xbohdpukc
09-25 11:59 AM
The Immigration Nationality Act does not say specifically that h4 time is added towards h1 time. It is the way laws interpreted by uscis that states h4 time counted towards H1. USCIS can change their interpretation by merely issuing a memo.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=454&page=3
see this thread.
Maybe it is a good idea to contact the Ombudsman about this issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but my assumption would be that this is cannot be changed by an USCIS memo. Why? Because H4 is simply a derivative status which means that it obeys all the rules pertinent to the primary beneficiary's status plus additional restrictions imposed to the particular classification by law. H status is restricted to 6 year continuous presence in the US.
It would be helpful to find the definition of a derivative status; INA does not provide such definition, but I'm sure they wouldn't be using these words loosely without a proper definition.
So my guess would be is that the answer to the question of "decoupling" H4 and H1b time will boil down to the answer to another question: what really defines a derivative status.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=454&page=3
see this thread.
Maybe it is a good idea to contact the Ombudsman about this issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but my assumption would be that this is cannot be changed by an USCIS memo. Why? Because H4 is simply a derivative status which means that it obeys all the rules pertinent to the primary beneficiary's status plus additional restrictions imposed to the particular classification by law. H status is restricted to 6 year continuous presence in the US.
It would be helpful to find the definition of a derivative status; INA does not provide such definition, but I'm sure they wouldn't be using these words loosely without a proper definition.
So my guess would be is that the answer to the question of "decoupling" H4 and H1b time will boil down to the answer to another question: what really defines a derivative status.
2011 Best Photoshop Wallpaper
VMH_GC
12-15 02:19 PM
I guess the officer did the right thing. In my opinion you don't have to worry about this. Tear the i-94 from your 797 and send it to lawyer along with your original i-94.
more...
iak1973
11-05 04:39 PM
Lets improve the chances to Mr. Narayana krishnan...
Please vote for him, thanks in advance.
iak
Please vote for him, thanks in advance.
iak
rb_248
02-11 03:36 PM
Scan and send the docs, if your parents have access to email and a printer. See if anybody is traveling to Chennai from San Jose. Send the docs along with them.
Hi Folks,
What is the fastest and perhaps a little economic way to get documents over to chennai (Tamil Nadu) or Calicut (Kerala) from here in San Jose, ca.
USPS has this service called Express Mail ($27.95) or Priority Mail ($12.95)
I guess USPS is claiming 6-10 days (guess no gurantee) to india.
Other couriers seems to be $70+ (FedEx, UPS, DHL)..
Anyone has had good luck with USPS ? or do you suggest the couriers mentioned above ?
Need to get docs for an interview for parents on Feb 26th in Chennai...
Thanks in Advance for your reply !!
Hi Folks,
What is the fastest and perhaps a little economic way to get documents over to chennai (Tamil Nadu) or Calicut (Kerala) from here in San Jose, ca.
USPS has this service called Express Mail ($27.95) or Priority Mail ($12.95)
I guess USPS is claiming 6-10 days (guess no gurantee) to india.
Other couriers seems to be $70+ (FedEx, UPS, DHL)..
Anyone has had good luck with USPS ? or do you suggest the couriers mentioned above ?
Need to get docs for an interview for parents on Feb 26th in Chennai...
Thanks in Advance for your reply !!
more...
vactorboy29
06-24 04:13 PM
Make sure Hotel is Safe and not with short term stay like pros.... .Even you have to to spend little more go for that.I had very bad experience.I had lost my documents that time.
2010 Photoshop Tuning wallpaper - 8
pjalan
04-01 03:08 PM
I spoke to one lawyer and he said I can respond to I-140 RFE myself if I know wht it is about.
If USCIS allows one to port I-1485 and approvable I-140 I am not sure what is all this mess about?
Can't I myself respond to the RFE?
If USCIS allows one to port I-1485 and approvable I-140 I am not sure what is all this mess about?
Can't I myself respond to the RFE?
more...
iwantgc
05-08 10:51 AM
Thanks for your opinion.
I would also appreciate if someone could provide me some notes before I call them at 12 noon.
Thank you in advance.
I would also appreciate if someone could provide me some notes before I call them at 12 noon.
Thank you in advance.
hair photoshop, wallpaper
kaisersose
07-23 09:01 AM
All,
I feel that those who concurrently filed I-140/485 in July 2007 are very lucky!
Here is my situation -
Previous Employer -
EB3,PD-Jan'04,I-140 cleared. Switched in June 2007 and wasn't able to file I-485 in July 2007
New Employer -
EB2, PD-Dec'-07, I-140 (Feb'08 - pending)
Question -
Based on Jun'08 Visa bulletin the dates for EB2-India were at Apr'04. Filed for I-140/485 based on my old priority date for EB3 labor (Jan'04). Explaining USCIS for PD transfer.
Well, folks at NSC did not understand the PD transfer concept and send my application back. Unclear as to what do now. I guess need to wait until the dates for EB2-India reach Dec'07 such that I can file.
Any "Creative" thoughts on how to approach USCIS moving forward.
Thanks in advance for your replies.
Aamchimumbai
You do not have to wait till Dec 07 becomes current. I assume when you applied for your second 140, you already requested them to use the earlier EB-3 PD. So when your EB2 140 is approved, it will have the earlier PD, which means you can apply for 485 when your 04 date is current.
Now all you have to do is wait for your 140 to be approved.
I feel that those who concurrently filed I-140/485 in July 2007 are very lucky!
Here is my situation -
Previous Employer -
EB3,PD-Jan'04,I-140 cleared. Switched in June 2007 and wasn't able to file I-485 in July 2007
New Employer -
EB2, PD-Dec'-07, I-140 (Feb'08 - pending)
Question -
Based on Jun'08 Visa bulletin the dates for EB2-India were at Apr'04. Filed for I-140/485 based on my old priority date for EB3 labor (Jan'04). Explaining USCIS for PD transfer.
Well, folks at NSC did not understand the PD transfer concept and send my application back. Unclear as to what do now. I guess need to wait until the dates for EB2-India reach Dec'07 such that I can file.
Any "Creative" thoughts on how to approach USCIS moving forward.
Thanks in advance for your replies.
Aamchimumbai
You do not have to wait till Dec 07 becomes current. I assume when you applied for your second 140, you already requested them to use the earlier EB-3 PD. So when your EB2 140 is approved, it will have the earlier PD, which means you can apply for 485 when your 04 date is current.
Now all you have to do is wait for your 140 to be approved.
more...
mugwump
11-25 12:48 PM
that's right. if u switch to F1 now then u will pretty much throw away your GC app. Plus you can only go to school part time on H1 with explicit written permission from the employer (consult lawyer to see if additional paperwork is needed). But you can go full time on EAD.
You do not need any permission from your employer. As long as you put in 40 hours per week, i dont think anyone cares for what you do with the rest of your time (as long as you dont hold another job).
And as far as going to school full time is concerned, i use the same logic. I was full time in Fall 2006 while being on H1b (and my GC was being processed). i am currently enrolled part time but will be enrolling full time next spring. I am currently working with the same employer. Dont think it will be an issue and dont plan on taking any permissions.
You do not need any permission from your employer. As long as you put in 40 hours per week, i dont think anyone cares for what you do with the rest of your time (as long as you dont hold another job).
And as far as going to school full time is concerned, i use the same logic. I was full time in Fall 2006 while being on H1b (and my GC was being processed). i am currently enrolled part time but will be enrolling full time next spring. I am currently working with the same employer. Dont think it will be an issue and dont plan on taking any permissions.
hot Photoshop Wallpaper Tutorials
MArch172008
05-22 06:58 PM
As mentioned by my HR attorney applied my labour application electronically on march 17th and forwarded me a case number starting with c , so i am assuming it was appl;ied at chicago center.
Its more then two months now i did not have any update from my HR inturn from attorney.
At the time of aplying attorney did not took any signature either from me or my HR , she said we have to sign at the later stages.
My fear is I might get a query or it may go into incomplete staus as it was not filled properly.
I am not sure if it should be filed in that way ....
Let me know if i am heading in right direction ...
Its more then two months now i did not have any update from my HR inturn from attorney.
At the time of aplying attorney did not took any signature either from me or my HR , she said we have to sign at the later stages.
My fear is I might get a query or it may go into incomplete staus as it was not filled properly.
I am not sure if it should be filed in that way ....
Let me know if i am heading in right direction ...
more...
house Here#39;s the wallpaper we will
mohitb272
12-10 07:17 PM
in my view software engineer and business analyst are NOT similar. One deals with generating lines of code and the other is taking requirements...in my view both are different...talk to your attorney...it is just my view only...and u know i am neither expert nor an attorney...
Well, In a small company as mine, people have to take a lot of other responsibilities besides development, including customer support and at times taking requirements. My role gradually changed but now I am a BA. Anyway, thanks for the advice.
Well, In a small company as mine, people have to take a lot of other responsibilities besides development, including customer support and at times taking requirements. My role gradually changed but now I am a BA. Anyway, thanks for the advice.
tattoo Photoshop wallpaper logo stock
sands_14
12-05 02:54 PM
i think u need not get a new h1 stamp and can sill come in and out on AP without compromising yr h1 status.
Yes,You should get a multiple-entry AP.If it is one-time entry AP,then you need another AP.Genrally nowadays u get multiple-entry AP.
Yes,You should get a multiple-entry AP.If it is one-time entry AP,then you need another AP.Genrally nowadays u get multiple-entry AP.
more...
pictures Photoshop wallpaper logo stock
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
dresses 30+ Photoshop Wallpaper
javaconsultant
02-20 05:30 PM
Guys,
What steps are we taking for labor backlog reduction.
Is Quinn & Gillespie gonna help us in this regard ?
What steps are we taking for labor backlog reduction.
Is Quinn & Gillespie gonna help us in this regard ?
more...
makeup Photoshop Wallpaper Tutorial
digitalborealis
01-10 10:51 AM
That probably was unnecessary and may triggered the additional check due to export control of high end researches.
I can imagine.. I work on Assisted GPS platform on US Wireless Carrier Phones. So When he heard GPS, he (VO) must have raised the flag. Having said that, I am a direct employee, not through any consulting company or so. it is just a matter of time. Just wait and watch.
I will update any reply I would get.
D
I can imagine.. I work on Assisted GPS platform on US Wireless Carrier Phones. So When he heard GPS, he (VO) must have raised the flag. Having said that, I am a direct employee, not through any consulting company or so. it is just a matter of time. Just wait and watch.
I will update any reply I would get.
D
girlfriend Photoshop Wallpaper Tutorials
rcr_bulk
08-28 03:28 PM
Admin Dudes,
I contributed $600 dollars so far and i have no access to Donor Forums. Please fix this.
Thanks
You contributed 600:confused: for what?
I contributed $600 dollars so far and i have no access to Donor Forums. Please fix this.
Thanks
You contributed 600:confused: for what?
hairstyles Photoshop Wallpaper tutorial
uma001
12-07 03:05 PM
My brother chose to leave USA on his own, after working for 6 years, without applying GC. He was getting 120K here in USA. In India, he joined Oracle Corp and his salary is almost same (about Rs.55Lacs). Indian salaries are becoming excellent these days.
Which position did your brother apply for and which technology?. 55 lakhs is too high for a person who has only 6 years of US experience.
Which position did your brother apply for and which technology?. 55 lakhs is too high for a person who has only 6 years of US experience.
like_watching_paint_dry
08-20 10:58 PM
Before I slowly forget all the various pain points from the past, I'm going to add this one detail that people usually neglect:
The new process requires you to deposit a the visa processing fees at a local branch of Nova Scotia Bank and get a deposit slip to submit with the visa application when you go into the consulate. Most banks open at 9 am - 10 am. So if you have an early appointment, be sure to go there the previous business day and get the fees stuff taken care of. If not, you will find yourself scrambling to get this done at the last minute.
The new process requires you to deposit a the visa processing fees at a local branch of Nova Scotia Bank and get a deposit slip to submit with the visa application when you go into the consulate. Most banks open at 9 am - 10 am. So if you have an early appointment, be sure to go there the previous business day and get the fees stuff taken care of. If not, you will find yourself scrambling to get this done at the last minute.
nacho
07-15 06:23 AM
USCIS is not required to return your adjustment of status applications within any timeframe. If your number becomes current before you receive your applications back, i suggest that you send in new applications and indicate on the I-485 that you submitted adjustment of status applications in July 2007 and have not yet received any correspondence from USCIS on the case.
Can a core team member comment on this please?
Can a core team member comment on this please?
0 comments:
Post a Comment