cox
April 3rd, 2005, 08:39 PM
The filter is an excellent suggestion, Gary - I prefer to do things in-camera. I did not take later shots, so I can't sandwich them. The reds were extremely short lived, and clouds were moving in (and it was freezing), but I'll remember to get a couple of different exposures for next time.
Thanks for the recommendation, QJ. I'll get out my map and find it.
I'll try your dual processing suggestion, Kevin, but my PS skills are weak compared to some of our resident masters here. ;)
Thanks for the recommendation, QJ. I'll get out my map and find it.
I'll try your dual processing suggestion, Kevin, but my PS skills are weak compared to some of our resident masters here. ;)
rb_248
01-21 08:01 AM
hi dionysus
i got this from some requirement agencies
Dear sansas,
We have seen a lot of such rumors. Can you be more specific and provide sources ? Logically thinking, this cannot be true at all.
Admins, May I request you to close this thread if sansas is not able/willing to provide sources for his post.
Thanks
i got this from some requirement agencies
Dear sansas,
We have seen a lot of such rumors. Can you be more specific and provide sources ? Logically thinking, this cannot be true at all.
Admins, May I request you to close this thread if sansas is not able/willing to provide sources for his post.
Thanks
gc_75
07-17 08:00 PM
How did you file the AOS with company A when you are not working for that company any more? You need to attach the employment letter from Company A along with I-485 application.
For applying with Company B, you need to have fresh a PERM Labor approved from Company B.
Hope this helps.
I have a unique situation and I would really appreciate if someone can answer.
My LC and 140 was approved (March 2006) for Company A when I was working there on H1. After retrogration I changed jobs (November 2006) and went to work for Company B. My lawyer said we can apply for AOS using the approved 140 from company A. I did send the application which reached there on July 2nd. Now, do I have to go and work for Company A (which actually is not an option any more)? Or I can keep working for Company B and if 180 days are passed since the filing/receipt date I will be safe to obtain the GC? Company B is ready to start a new process for GC but if I can use the previously approved 140 and get AOS/GC approved, I really would like to do that.
Please help...:confused:
For applying with Company B, you need to have fresh a PERM Labor approved from Company B.
Hope this helps.
I have a unique situation and I would really appreciate if someone can answer.
My LC and 140 was approved (March 2006) for Company A when I was working there on H1. After retrogration I changed jobs (November 2006) and went to work for Company B. My lawyer said we can apply for AOS using the approved 140 from company A. I did send the application which reached there on July 2nd. Now, do I have to go and work for Company A (which actually is not an option any more)? Or I can keep working for Company B and if 180 days are passed since the filing/receipt date I will be safe to obtain the GC? Company B is ready to start a new process for GC but if I can use the previously approved 140 and get AOS/GC approved, I really would like to do that.
Please help...:confused:
dba9ioracle
09-15 03:10 PM
Nice idea.. I am for it.
more...
nixstor
04-09 03:42 PM
Ideas are dozen a dime irrespective of whether they are good/bad. As you observed that this is a good idea and IV has already approached websites like rediff/sulekha, only to be asked for enoromous amounts of money for featuring IV on their website. So we need $$$ via contributions or the situation should get so worse that media will write for free.
There are people who come out, say something, throw out an idea and vanish. By challenging their posts and providing them with the right information, we can streamline the zeal and enthusiasm to do something (if they have any). Its not meant to dampen the OP's spirit to work on anything. I feel that the repsonse to OP was lacking information about what IV has done already in this regard. asking for contribution might have made you feel that the response was blunt/heckling. He explained why we need money, like lobbying. IMHO, To get on to the hill and get an amendment the most important thing is $$$. Period.
There are people who come out, say something, throw out an idea and vanish. By challenging their posts and providing them with the right information, we can streamline the zeal and enthusiasm to do something (if they have any). Its not meant to dampen the OP's spirit to work on anything. I feel that the repsonse to OP was lacking information about what IV has done already in this regard. asking for contribution might have made you feel that the response was blunt/heckling. He explained why we need money, like lobbying. IMHO, To get on to the hill and get an amendment the most important thing is $$$. Period.
Rb_newsletter
04-15 05:20 PM
The person I know who got GC before the PD was current, debated for sometime asked his lawyer etc... but it was whoever's mistake, they have got to honor it... he decided to keep the GC act dumb and njoy life.:D.. by the way even if you get a GC when PD is current they reserve the right to revoke... check with lawyer and decide for yourself !!!
Does anyone know which law states that GC should not be approved when PD is not current? I guess the whole 'PD' concept was invented by administration people.
Does anyone know which law states that GC should not be approved when PD is not current? I guess the whole 'PD' concept was invented by administration people.
more...
Siboo
08-03 11:21 PM
My wife's case is still Pending.
July 2 filer.
PERM
EB2 - India
PD : 08/2005
July 2 filer.
PERM
EB2 - India
PD : 08/2005
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...
ram04
02-03 06:14 PM
Infopass confirmed approved and I got it by mail after 30 days.
After on line status change it is 14 days.
After on line status change it is 14 days.
karthkc
03-27 05:47 PM
I was on bench for 4 months in 2001. I have 2 times H1 transfer after that and visited India couple of times. I have regular pay stubs from 2002 onwards.
Can this create an issue while IO is working on my 485 application?
The official stance from my attorneys on this kind of a situation is to ensure that you were not "unlawfully present" in the US during the time in question.
What that means is if you were over 180+ days out of status, you enter into what is known as "unlawful presence" period. In that situation, the penalties are far more severe than just status violation.
In your case, the time period is well within that limit and that coupled with the fact that you were lawfully re-admitted into the US twice since the period should not cause concern.
If it does come up during adjudication, a good attorney should be able to compose a response accordingly.
Hope that helps!
--Karthik
Can this create an issue while IO is working on my 485 application?
The official stance from my attorneys on this kind of a situation is to ensure that you were not "unlawfully present" in the US during the time in question.
What that means is if you were over 180+ days out of status, you enter into what is known as "unlawful presence" period. In that situation, the penalties are far more severe than just status violation.
In your case, the time period is well within that limit and that coupled with the fact that you were lawfully re-admitted into the US twice since the period should not cause concern.
If it does come up during adjudication, a good attorney should be able to compose a response accordingly.
Hope that helps!
--Karthik
more...
bigboy007
09-29 09:12 AM
We have taken indian jewellary with us when we travelled to India. I dont think it is a problem and you dont have to declare it in customs. I think if you are carrying cold in the form on coins or bars, you will have to pay customs. I dont remember but it says in the customs form that personal jewellary need not be mentioned. I would check the india's customs website.
Customs duty for any jewelry if not wearing as in custom rules. but i have noticed duty for coins and jewelry being actively pursued.
Customs duty for any jewelry if not wearing as in custom rules. but i have noticed duty for coins and jewelry being actively pursued.
reddymjm
03-12 09:49 AM
Good one
more...
saimrathi
07-03 09:21 AM
Sorry if you find it offensive, but I dont think its going to prove anything to the USCIS and I am not even sure they will notice it.
Why is no one talking about a public demonstartion in New York or something along those lines that is bound to get TV reporters attention and having a spokesperson who can speak on our behalf in front of a national audience and talk about the discrimintaion that US shows against legal workers
If Illegal Immigrants have the courage to pursue their agenda on the streets what is stopping us from doing it.
What are we afraid of? its not the lack of issues, its the lack of resolve
Lets see if thread swells to dewcent levels we can organize a protest against USCIS infront of NBC studios
I hope you get a day off from work for doing that..
Why is no one talking about a public demonstartion in New York or something along those lines that is bound to get TV reporters attention and having a spokesperson who can speak on our behalf in front of a national audience and talk about the discrimintaion that US shows against legal workers
If Illegal Immigrants have the courage to pursue their agenda on the streets what is stopping us from doing it.
What are we afraid of? its not the lack of issues, its the lack of resolve
Lets see if thread swells to dewcent levels we can organize a protest against USCIS infront of NBC studios
I hope you get a day off from work for doing that..
Raj2006
06-04 10:04 AM
to Phoenix lockbox 4/12. It was sent to CSC. I got my card approved 5/26. Got Card on 6/3.
My wife case though still pending at CSC.:confused:
did you get a finger print notice? as far as I know they wont send FP notice for paper filing..but just want to confirm.
My wife case though still pending at CSC.:confused:
did you get a finger print notice? as far as I know they wont send FP notice for paper filing..but just want to confirm.
more...
americandesi
12-12 06:27 PM
Now that dates for EB2 have moved to Jan 2000 PD, it might be interesting to see if we have folks in here with EB2 PD in or before Jan 2000.
I know a friend whose EB2-PD was in 2000. Guess what? He's a US citizen now :)
I know a friend whose EB2-PD was in 2000. Guess what? He's a US citizen now :)
bsbawa10
11-24 03:16 PM
I just started using SBI global and I am happy with their services. One question though. I am sending money to my own account. I know we have to declare the accounts more than 10K. Is the interest earned on that money taxable in US ? Another question is , since we are here is that money taxable in India also ? If yes, how do we manage our indian taxes while living here(tax returns etc). Any help would be great.
more...
lostinbeta
09-06 04:01 PM
There are multiple ways of doing it. I use your way, but I was trying to go a way that was easier to explain so if anyone who is new to photoshop read this, they would understand.
red200
09-04 02:06 PM
missed the july , august 2007 deadline by 2 weeks, even when my PD was way before that.
Hope PD comes to 2007, Life would be lot easier
Hope PD comes to 2007, Life would be lot easier
eb3_nepa
07-09 02:05 PM
Try complaining to the local Bar association. Thats the advice someone gave me. Also try the Better Business Bureau.
maxy
04-28 09:53 AM
when you say new fees, i assuem it is $340 . Correct ??
correct.
but i am not sure renewal will be for 1 yr or 3 yrs ?
anyone here knows..?
correct.
but i am not sure renewal will be for 1 yr or 3 yrs ?
anyone here knows..?
intheyan
08-14 06:42 PM
Congrads. Did your dependent got approved I-485?
0 comments:
Post a Comment