psaxena
10-07 07:20 PM
I did the same this one month back. All you have to do is the letter to USCIS telling them that your attorney will not represent your case in future and please mail all the communication directly to my registered home address.
Send this letter to address mentioned in I-797 Notice of Reciept of I-485 with acknowledgement return address card.
Look for my previous post related to this and you will find the sample letter as well.
Folks, Please let me know if anyone knows where to send G-28 form if one wants to revoke attorney and be one's own representative?
Send this letter to address mentioned in I-797 Notice of Reciept of I-485 with acknowledgement return address card.
Look for my previous post related to this and you will find the sample letter as well.
Folks, Please let me know if anyone knows where to send G-28 form if one wants to revoke attorney and be one's own representative?
wallpaper -gucci-ads jennifer lopez
actonwang
06-16 02:05 PM
it sounds like PD is a MUST for approval but for actual processing order , as in backlog queue, it seems purely by luck :(
trueguy
08-09 06:15 PM
Bump
2011 house Lopez reportedly accepted the jennifer lopez kids gucci ad.
knowDOL
08-23 09:37 AM
good one.
Just correct the do to don't, you are all right.
That's because most people do even know what a I-485 looks like :confused: and will likely not know for years!
Just correct the do to don't, you are all right.
That's because most people do even know what a I-485 looks like :confused: and will likely not know for years!
more...
smuggymba
03-30 08:34 PM
To the Admins - I went in to update my PD on the profile, the latest date is oct 2009. Can you please update.
satishku_2000
11-21 05:56 PM
Similar Question:
I have not left the USA for the last 5 years. I have since extended my H1- thrice. So I have 3 new I-94's and the old one that is stapled in the passport. I-94 is taken at the airport when you depart, to record your departure and also to see if you were residing legally on a valid stay. Question: They always take the one stapled in your pasport. (That in my case shows an expired stay.) so should I give them the latest I-94 when I depart?.
when you get an extension of stay you will have same number for all of them.
I have not left the USA for the last 5 years. I have since extended my H1- thrice. So I have 3 new I-94's and the old one that is stapled in the passport. I-94 is taken at the airport when you depart, to record your departure and also to see if you were residing legally on a valid stay. Question: They always take the one stapled in your pasport. (That in my case shows an expired stay.) so should I give them the latest I-94 when I depart?.
when you get an extension of stay you will have same number for all of them.
more...
jayleno
10-08 04:58 PM
I recieved my I-485 reciept directly in the mail from USCIS. My attorney got his copy to thier address. I think you need to ask your employer. Since I-485 belongs to the employee, there is no reason for them to hold the original with them.
Could you share how you received the original 485 receipt? I only received a copy of the receipt. Can we request one from USCIS?
Could you share how you received the original 485 receipt? I only received a copy of the receipt. Can we request one from USCIS?
2010 Jennifer Lopez dress gold
VA2008
09-25 11:56 AM
Great find! I printed and posted it my office.
more...
dealsnet
01-13 10:06 AM
Are you jocking Chandrakanth ? ;);););):eek::eek::cool::cool:
I think Lawyers have a system where they can send emails to the service centers in a particular format, the receiving software at USCIS automatically parses the email and assigns the case to officers.
Or, if it has been a long time since it is current try contacting the Ombudsman.
I think Lawyers have a system where they can send emails to the service centers in a particular format, the receiving software at USCIS automatically parses the email and assigns the case to officers.
Or, if it has been a long time since it is current try contacting the Ombudsman.
hair tattoo Jennifer Lopez Pictures
enggr
10-12 12:37 AM
Hi Friends/Gurus,
My attorney received an RFE on H1B extension last week.
The details of my case are
2004-Oct-01 -- My H1B started
2004-Nov-20 -- I entered the country on H1B for the first time
2008-Dec-25 -- Date till my current work authorization (I-797) is valid
2010-Sep-30 -- Date I complete 6 years under H1B. Since I entered only on 2004-Nov-20 my attorney said my 6 years is up to 2010 Nov 20th
2008-August-10th -- My attorney applied for my H1B extension under normal processing. He requested until 2011-Dec-25th (3 years from current I-797) expiration on the petition instead of 2010-Nov-20th
2008-Oct-8th -- Attorney received the RFE
When the petition for H1B extension was prepared on 2008 July, I asked the employer why the period of intended employment is put as 2011-Dec-25th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. The employer replied that its a usual practice to request 3 years of H1B extension and USCIS will only give the maximum possible
What's the RFE
Now we got the RFE and it says we have requested for an extension beyond 6 years and for getting that we should have a labor certification pending more than 365 days or an approved I-140.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a labor cert with priority date of 2006 August which was approved but the I-140 was denied on EB2 category for not meeting 5 years of progressive experience. Earlier this year in 2008 April we have filed another EB3 I-140 for the same 2006 Aug Labor
On the H1B extension petition attorney had requested until 2011-Nov 20th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. I saw the H1B extension application and it says Dates of Intended employment as 12/25/2008 till 12/25/2011
Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period only until 11/20/2010?
The attorney contacted me and said they are going to send a copy of my I-94 as of Nov 20th 2004 and a copy of my immigration port of entry stamp on my passport stamped on nov 20th 2004 and request to give the extension. The attorney mentioned that the I-94 and port of entry seal will help USCIS to determine the maximum period of H1B that can be granted
My worry
My worry is INS rejecting the petition saying these kinds of changes in dates (2010 nov instead of 2011 dec) cannot be done in the midde of the process and this will be rejected and we need to file again a new petition. I know that we can work until 240 days if we file for an extension on time. I want to get this extension obtained before 2008 dec 25th so that I don't have to go through a chance of denial after 2008 dec 25th which can put my status into illegal sometimes. I am thinking of premium processign also if the results of the RFE doesn't come by next month (November).
My questions
1) Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period of employment only until 11/20/2010 on the original petition?
2) Please advice me on how we should resopnd to the RFE and what date we should request for.
3) Should we ask USCIS to give extension until 2010 sep 30th if they don't agree for 2010 nov 20th? Does this has to be clearly mentioned in the RFE response letter?
Your help very much appreciated. Please reply to this as my legal stay is based on this.
My attorney received an RFE on H1B extension last week.
The details of my case are
2004-Oct-01 -- My H1B started
2004-Nov-20 -- I entered the country on H1B for the first time
2008-Dec-25 -- Date till my current work authorization (I-797) is valid
2010-Sep-30 -- Date I complete 6 years under H1B. Since I entered only on 2004-Nov-20 my attorney said my 6 years is up to 2010 Nov 20th
2008-August-10th -- My attorney applied for my H1B extension under normal processing. He requested until 2011-Dec-25th (3 years from current I-797) expiration on the petition instead of 2010-Nov-20th
2008-Oct-8th -- Attorney received the RFE
When the petition for H1B extension was prepared on 2008 July, I asked the employer why the period of intended employment is put as 2011-Dec-25th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. The employer replied that its a usual practice to request 3 years of H1B extension and USCIS will only give the maximum possible
What's the RFE
Now we got the RFE and it says we have requested for an extension beyond 6 years and for getting that we should have a labor certification pending more than 365 days or an approved I-140.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a labor cert with priority date of 2006 August which was approved but the I-140 was denied on EB2 category for not meeting 5 years of progressive experience. Earlier this year in 2008 April we have filed another EB3 I-140 for the same 2006 Aug Labor
On the H1B extension petition attorney had requested until 2011-Nov 20th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. I saw the H1B extension application and it says Dates of Intended employment as 12/25/2008 till 12/25/2011
Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period only until 11/20/2010?
The attorney contacted me and said they are going to send a copy of my I-94 as of Nov 20th 2004 and a copy of my immigration port of entry stamp on my passport stamped on nov 20th 2004 and request to give the extension. The attorney mentioned that the I-94 and port of entry seal will help USCIS to determine the maximum period of H1B that can be granted
My worry
My worry is INS rejecting the petition saying these kinds of changes in dates (2010 nov instead of 2011 dec) cannot be done in the midde of the process and this will be rejected and we need to file again a new petition. I know that we can work until 240 days if we file for an extension on time. I want to get this extension obtained before 2008 dec 25th so that I don't have to go through a chance of denial after 2008 dec 25th which can put my status into illegal sometimes. I am thinking of premium processign also if the results of the RFE doesn't come by next month (November).
My questions
1) Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period of employment only until 11/20/2010 on the original petition?
2) Please advice me on how we should resopnd to the RFE and what date we should request for.
3) Should we ask USCIS to give extension until 2010 sep 30th if they don't agree for 2010 nov 20th? Does this has to be clearly mentioned in the RFE response letter?
Your help very much appreciated. Please reply to this as my legal stay is based on this.
more...
Berkeleybee
03-28 11:03 AM
Berkleybee,
We know IV has set policies about postings, but i have to agree with Jnayar here. It is really a waste of time and counterproductive for individuals to be on 2-3 different forums. Especially when the creme-de-la-creme is on this one.
I mean at max, some people will read the issues and not post a reply, but if someone DOES have an answer, it would make life easier on the person that posted the question. From my personal experience, i used to visit the ImmigrationPortal religiously during the past year. Now i have not once stepped onto that forum, coz most of my needs regarding information are met here. We have a strong, vast and diverse community on here and we can help each other out, being that most Immigration Lawyers are not very prompt in answering our questions. You guys have been doing a great job moderating this forum, but we need to have a seperate category for these extra issues.
Adding another forum should not be too big of an issue in my opinion, though the Admin could shed some light on this.
All people have to do is monitor two forums. That is exactly what I do. When my application was sent off to the Texas Service Center from the CSC, I posted on Immig Portal not here.
We do not want IV to become just another forum. We want to keep our activism at the forefront. And we want the "creme de la" as you call them to focus on the work at hand not answering every question that comes along. If you are familiar with Immig Portal you know that the same question is asked repeatedly, misinformation is spread and moderators have enough to do without getting involved in all that. Not to mention frayed nerves, name calling and the all the rest of it. As it is it is hard to keep people on topic in any given thread. I am not sure you know about the behind the scenes work needed to keep this forum accurate, civil and on point.
Please understand that we think of Immig Portal as a complementary forum. We were born there, and we think it is the appropriate forum to discuss processing issues.
And as for extra time, think of all the extra time IV volunteers are spending just getting basic IV work done. Spend the extra 5 mins to go to Immig Portal.
warm regards,
Berkeleybee
We know IV has set policies about postings, but i have to agree with Jnayar here. It is really a waste of time and counterproductive for individuals to be on 2-3 different forums. Especially when the creme-de-la-creme is on this one.
I mean at max, some people will read the issues and not post a reply, but if someone DOES have an answer, it would make life easier on the person that posted the question. From my personal experience, i used to visit the ImmigrationPortal religiously during the past year. Now i have not once stepped onto that forum, coz most of my needs regarding information are met here. We have a strong, vast and diverse community on here and we can help each other out, being that most Immigration Lawyers are not very prompt in answering our questions. You guys have been doing a great job moderating this forum, but we need to have a seperate category for these extra issues.
Adding another forum should not be too big of an issue in my opinion, though the Admin could shed some light on this.
All people have to do is monitor two forums. That is exactly what I do. When my application was sent off to the Texas Service Center from the CSC, I posted on Immig Portal not here.
We do not want IV to become just another forum. We want to keep our activism at the forefront. And we want the "creme de la" as you call them to focus on the work at hand not answering every question that comes along. If you are familiar with Immig Portal you know that the same question is asked repeatedly, misinformation is spread and moderators have enough to do without getting involved in all that. Not to mention frayed nerves, name calling and the all the rest of it. As it is it is hard to keep people on topic in any given thread. I am not sure you know about the behind the scenes work needed to keep this forum accurate, civil and on point.
Please understand that we think of Immig Portal as a complementary forum. We were born there, and we think it is the appropriate forum to discuss processing issues.
And as for extra time, think of all the extra time IV volunteers are spending just getting basic IV work done. Spend the extra 5 mins to go to Immig Portal.
warm regards,
Berkeleybee
hot Gucci releases the ad for
gotgc?
08-06 10:45 AM
I have a EB2 - I140 (PERM) pending at Texas from 06/2006 and another EB3-I140 (RIR) pending from 06/2007. When my lawyer filed the EB2-I140, he filed it with a copy of labor from DOL (not original hard copy). He says he did not know it would cause such a delay. My EB3-I140 however was filed on labor approved from the Dallas BEC. It was filed with the original copy of labor. Are there any people like me, who have endured a long wait because they did not have the original labor ? Please post your experiences here .......
I filed my EB3 LC Substitution I-140 with the copy of the labor. It has been pending since June 2006.
I filed my EB3 LC Substitution I-140 with the copy of the labor. It has been pending since June 2006.
more...
house jennifer lopez kids gucci ad. Besides, the ad is also full
anilsal
10-30 04:42 PM
I understand what you are saying but its difficult for people to check their typos when posting online. I mean not every one has that time when they are juggling things. It's not M$oft outlook right :) B T W, I am not the one who posted it.
I think if the person misspelt Stanford once, it is fine. If there have been multiple references and he misspelt all of them, then there is a problem.
My opinion (and mine only) is that if we claim high skills/higher education for our immigration, then we should be able to type decent english even with eyes closed. ;)
I think if the person misspelt Stanford once, it is fine. If there have been multiple references and he misspelt all of them, then there is a problem.
My opinion (and mine only) is that if we claim high skills/higher education for our immigration, then we should be able to type decent english even with eyes closed. ;)
tattoo “Jennifer Lopez stars in new
smiledentist
10-26 01:16 PM
thanks arnet
more...
pictures jennifer lopez children
Blog Feeds
09-18 10:20 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7dsiJe-24xt_zk_lDVI7Db6TqZLx_V8F2I8-6GAe4WD3bV6nOsP-zwQgG_Tjp1FokZ4-jNjPC7gW3dGVV9ywqqaARB-r8-KTeVzp9u6nUpg319EV1F4LySGGg3aRQHAMY__krnkxHLt8/s320/Wilson+Liar.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7dsiJe-24xt_zk_lDVI7Db6TqZLx_V8F2I8-6GAe4WD3bV6nOsP-zwQgG_Tjp1FokZ4-jNjPC7gW3dGVV9ywqqaARB-r8-KTeVzp9u6nUpg319EV1F4LySGGg3aRQHAMY__krnkxHLt8/s1600-h/Wilson+Liar.jpg)During President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, Congressman Joe Wilson (R. SC), shouted "LIAR!" when President Obama stated that the proposed health care plan would not cover "illegal aliens." Now, Joe Wilson said he should know this because he once was an immigration lawyer (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/09/rep-joe-wilson-speaks-to-rwv.html). Whether that meant immigration from or to South Carolina, I am not sure, but one thing is for sure, no one I know ever knew Joe Wilson the immigration lawyer. If by "immigration lawyer" Mr. Wilson meant that he once helped an immigrant get deported, I am not sure that really counts. But if "Joe the Immigration Lawyer" is like "Joe the Plumber," then maybe he thinks he really was one.
After all, an immigration lawyer would likely be able to understand what exactly the law means when it says that only citizens and permanent residents are covered under the Obama plan. What has caused Joe Wilson to react like this, besides a serious lack of self control, is the provision in the proposed legislation that eliminates the requirement of using the "SAVE" system to verify whether someone who is an immigrant, is legally in the United States. Use of this program has stopped very few undocumented immigrants from getting public benefits, but has stopped literally thousands of U.S. citizens, mostly poor, from obtaining benefits because of their lack of accessible proof of their citizenship.
Factcheck.org has presented a short article on Seven Falsehoods About Health Care (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/). One of those applies directly to this point:
False: Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered. One Republican congressman issued
a press release claiming that "5,600,000 Illegal Aliens May Be Covered Under Obamacare (http://steveking.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a294b300-19b9-b4b1-1296-659af869849a&Region_id=&Issue_id=)," and we�ve been peppered with queries about similar claims. They�re not true. In fact, the House bill (the only bill to be formally introduced in its entirety) specifically says that no federal money would be spent on giving illegal immigrants health coverage:
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 � NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
Also, under current law, those in the country illegally don�t qualify for federal health programs. Of interest: About half of illegal immigrants have health insurance now, according to the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center, which says those who lack insurance do so principally because their employers don�t offer it."Misleading GOP Health Care Claims" (http://factcheck.org/2009/07/misleading-gop-health-care-claims/) July 23 � by Brooks Jackson, Viveca Novak, Lori Robertson and Jess Henig.
I can certainly see both sides of the debate, and, frankly, neither side is being completely honest or clear. What is quite clear, is how immigration, and our broken immigration system, keeps coming up in the context of the debate of national agenda items, such as the health care debate.
Several weeks ago I blogged on the danger that the tone of the Health care debate (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/08/healthcare-debate-and-immigration.html)had for the coming immigration reform debate. Calling the President a Liar during his speech to a joint session to Congress is Exhibit A in what we have in store for the coming debate. If Joe Wilson the Immigration Lawyer can misrepresent the consequences of legislative language as straight forward as these two particular sections, we have to be prepared for the extraordinary misrepresentations of any positive aspects of an immigration reform bill. Whether it is "amnesty," "rewarding law breakers," "open borders," "Liars," or even "destroyers of American culture" we have to understand how to phrase and present the response. Without a doubt, the response from those of us who understand the need to balance immigration reform, with security concerns, and with economic growth has to be not only vocal, but focused. We, as Real Immigration Lawyers, must know the language of the proposed legislation, we must know the myths that are out there, and we need to be vocal in our response.
Next week, more than 40 talk radio hosts are descending on Capital Hill for the FAIR (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=846)Annual Scare the Crap Out of Congress Boondoggle. The outrageous claims of the downfall of America caused by illegal immigration, along with similarly nutty myths will be presented as facts. Actual real news organization will cite the Center for Immigration Studies as a legitimate source of information. We must be prepared to call into our local radio stations, whose hosts are in D.C. next week, and be prepared to present the facts of immigration. Not by sugar coating the problems that are caused by illegal immigration, but rather by pointing out which specific laws are broken (INA 212(a)(9) anyone?) and how having a comprehensive solution can actually fix the immigration pothole in the legislative superhighway. Immigration Lawyers it is time to Stand Up and be vocal and beat back the immigration myths (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?bc=27924).
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-8070452709764975137?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/liar-what-does-health-care-have-to-do.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7dsiJe-24xt_zk_lDVI7Db6TqZLx_V8F2I8-6GAe4WD3bV6nOsP-zwQgG_Tjp1FokZ4-jNjPC7gW3dGVV9ywqqaARB-r8-KTeVzp9u6nUpg319EV1F4LySGGg3aRQHAMY__krnkxHLt8/s320/Wilson+Liar.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7dsiJe-24xt_zk_lDVI7Db6TqZLx_V8F2I8-6GAe4WD3bV6nOsP-zwQgG_Tjp1FokZ4-jNjPC7gW3dGVV9ywqqaARB-r8-KTeVzp9u6nUpg319EV1F4LySGGg3aRQHAMY__krnkxHLt8/s1600-h/Wilson+Liar.jpg)During President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, Congressman Joe Wilson (R. SC), shouted "LIAR!" when President Obama stated that the proposed health care plan would not cover "illegal aliens." Now, Joe Wilson said he should know this because he once was an immigration lawyer (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/09/rep-joe-wilson-speaks-to-rwv.html). Whether that meant immigration from or to South Carolina, I am not sure, but one thing is for sure, no one I know ever knew Joe Wilson the immigration lawyer. If by "immigration lawyer" Mr. Wilson meant that he once helped an immigrant get deported, I am not sure that really counts. But if "Joe the Immigration Lawyer" is like "Joe the Plumber," then maybe he thinks he really was one.
After all, an immigration lawyer would likely be able to understand what exactly the law means when it says that only citizens and permanent residents are covered under the Obama plan. What has caused Joe Wilson to react like this, besides a serious lack of self control, is the provision in the proposed legislation that eliminates the requirement of using the "SAVE" system to verify whether someone who is an immigrant, is legally in the United States. Use of this program has stopped very few undocumented immigrants from getting public benefits, but has stopped literally thousands of U.S. citizens, mostly poor, from obtaining benefits because of their lack of accessible proof of their citizenship.
Factcheck.org has presented a short article on Seven Falsehoods About Health Care (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/). One of those applies directly to this point:
False: Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered. One Republican congressman issued
a press release claiming that "5,600,000 Illegal Aliens May Be Covered Under Obamacare (http://steveking.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a294b300-19b9-b4b1-1296-659af869849a&Region_id=&Issue_id=)," and we�ve been peppered with queries about similar claims. They�re not true. In fact, the House bill (the only bill to be formally introduced in its entirety) specifically says that no federal money would be spent on giving illegal immigrants health coverage:
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 � NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
Also, under current law, those in the country illegally don�t qualify for federal health programs. Of interest: About half of illegal immigrants have health insurance now, according to the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center, which says those who lack insurance do so principally because their employers don�t offer it."Misleading GOP Health Care Claims" (http://factcheck.org/2009/07/misleading-gop-health-care-claims/) July 23 � by Brooks Jackson, Viveca Novak, Lori Robertson and Jess Henig.
I can certainly see both sides of the debate, and, frankly, neither side is being completely honest or clear. What is quite clear, is how immigration, and our broken immigration system, keeps coming up in the context of the debate of national agenda items, such as the health care debate.
Several weeks ago I blogged on the danger that the tone of the Health care debate (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/08/healthcare-debate-and-immigration.html)had for the coming immigration reform debate. Calling the President a Liar during his speech to a joint session to Congress is Exhibit A in what we have in store for the coming debate. If Joe Wilson the Immigration Lawyer can misrepresent the consequences of legislative language as straight forward as these two particular sections, we have to be prepared for the extraordinary misrepresentations of any positive aspects of an immigration reform bill. Whether it is "amnesty," "rewarding law breakers," "open borders," "Liars," or even "destroyers of American culture" we have to understand how to phrase and present the response. Without a doubt, the response from those of us who understand the need to balance immigration reform, with security concerns, and with economic growth has to be not only vocal, but focused. We, as Real Immigration Lawyers, must know the language of the proposed legislation, we must know the myths that are out there, and we need to be vocal in our response.
Next week, more than 40 talk radio hosts are descending on Capital Hill for the FAIR (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=846)Annual Scare the Crap Out of Congress Boondoggle. The outrageous claims of the downfall of America caused by illegal immigration, along with similarly nutty myths will be presented as facts. Actual real news organization will cite the Center for Immigration Studies as a legitimate source of information. We must be prepared to call into our local radio stations, whose hosts are in D.C. next week, and be prepared to present the facts of immigration. Not by sugar coating the problems that are caused by illegal immigration, but rather by pointing out which specific laws are broken (INA 212(a)(9) anyone?) and how having a comprehensive solution can actually fix the immigration pothole in the legislative superhighway. Immigration Lawyers it is time to Stand Up and be vocal and beat back the immigration myths (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?bc=27924).
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-8070452709764975137?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/liar-what-does-health-care-have-to-do.html)
dresses hot jennifer lopez children
shana04
01-31 01:21 AM
Friends,
Need help and suggestion.
To my surprise, today I got a electricity bill from Nov11 2008 to Jan23 2009 a total of :mad::mad::mad:$979.00 :mad::mad::mad:
I leave in a single bed room ground floor 785 Sq ft.
I have called the customer service for dispute and investigation.:mad::mad::mad:
Has any one encountered this kind of problems with electricity department. please enlighten !!!
:confused::confused::confused:
Need help and suggestion.
To my surprise, today I got a electricity bill from Nov11 2008 to Jan23 2009 a total of :mad::mad::mad:$979.00 :mad::mad::mad:
I leave in a single bed room ground floor 785 Sq ft.
I have called the customer service for dispute and investigation.:mad::mad::mad:
Has any one encountered this kind of problems with electricity department. please enlighten !!!
:confused::confused::confused:
more...
makeup 2011 jennifer lopez kids gucci
prash20
05-29 09:26 PM
the reason for denial was regarding the Company B , they were saying that Company B doesnt qualify as a employer or agent so cannot employ me
The transfer was from Company A h1 to Company B h1 not from university h1 to compnay B h1
The transfer was from Company A h1 to Company B h1 not from university h1 to compnay B h1
girlfriend Jennifer Lopez#39;s twins will be
krishnam70
05-08 01:47 PM
Thank you
Subscription Payment Sent (Unique Transaction ID #82G15598SR169690U)
In reference to: S-4UL2252729966384J
-cheers
kris
Subscription Payment Sent (Unique Transaction ID #82G15598SR169690U)
In reference to: S-4UL2252729966384J
-cheers
kris
hairstyles 2010 jenniferlopez twins gucci
pd_recapturing
08-24 02:49 PM
I did exactly the same thing. I had a EB3 May 2004 I-140 approved and I applied 485 with this. during the first quarter of this year, I applied a new labor in EB2 and got it approved in 2 months. I applied I-140 EB2 in premium on 29th June and got it approved. Now my lawyer is going to interfile this new I-140 with my existing pending 485.
First of all, dont worry with your old 140 while applying new one. They would not touch your old 140. The only issue right now is that there is no PP of 140 so you might need to wait up to one year to see 140 approved and that might kill the purpose.Just pray that they start PP soon.
First of all, dont worry with your old 140 while applying new one. They would not touch your old 140. The only issue right now is that there is no PP of 140 so you might need to wait up to one year to see 140 approved and that might kill the purpose.Just pray that they start PP soon.
Sunx_2004
10-22 03:50 PM
Cheques cashed on Friday got all receipts number today.
July 17th no receipt yet
Just chill
;)
July 17th no receipt yet
Just chill
;)
ras
05-24 12:15 PM
My attorney told me that EAD to H1 will not counted against the cap if the person was on H1 before going on EAD. Is it true.
couple of attorneys with whom I enquired also told me that if you still have time on h1 then you are not counted under the cap and do not need to file afresh which goes through the process of lottery etc. I think at the most you need to go to the consulate to get the visa stamping. Can some one experience corroborate this.
Has anyone in the forum did EAD to H1?
couple of attorneys with whom I enquired also told me that if you still have time on h1 then you are not counted under the cap and do not need to file afresh which goes through the process of lottery etc. I think at the most you need to go to the consulate to get the visa stamping. Can some one experience corroborate this.
Has anyone in the forum did EAD to H1?
0 comments:
Post a Comment