ThinkTwice
07-11 05:56 PM
Is what is needed.
wallpaper provincial flags of canada.
gcventure
04-07 04:32 PM
ggc,
What was the outcome of your interview. Did you get 485 approval. I am in a similar situation. Appreciate your reply.
What was the outcome of your interview. Did you get 485 approval. I am in a similar situation. Appreciate your reply.
perm2gc
07-08 09:57 PM
I was wondering if we have approached "Consulate General of India" and Ministry for Immigrant Indians (Aapravasi Bhartiya Mantralaya) and check if they can help us in this visa fiasco. Indian statesman and good enough in visiting America to get foreign investment at the state or central level, but where do they stand when the same disapora need their help to find injustice they face on the foreign land. Any thoughts?
May be we can get their help to gather support from pro India congressmen and senators
India govt will not involve in USA internal matters.Idea was floated long back by few members and core team responded to it.
May be we can get their help to gather support from pro India congressmen and senators
India govt will not involve in USA internal matters.Idea was floated long back by few members and core team responded to it.
2011 Provincial flags at Government
gparr
July 26th, 2005, 04:20 PM
Well, you got me started on something new Gary.... Since I don't shoot in raw format, I have never processed RAW before in photoshop, so I had to first download the most recent version of the raw plug-in.... and what fun! But since I have never played with it before, I'm still experimenting. Thanks! You've opened up a whole new world for me! :)
Always glad to help you expand your horizons, Queen. Anxious to see your version of my image.
Gary
Always glad to help you expand your horizons, Queen. Anxious to see your version of my image.
Gary
more...
man-woman-and-gc
03-10 10:48 AM
. I had the same. you should be getting an Interview at the local office soon(in one or two months time). They want to verify something regarding your case. In my case it was the missing vaccination document
Thankks for responding. Atleast now I know that my application is alive at USCIS.
Thankks for responding. Atleast now I know that my application is alive at USCIS.
traveldoc
09-30 07:16 AM
Ken,
First off priority mail could take about 5 days to reach and sounds like you are right about there now. Second, if you sent via priority mail with delivery confirmation the post office is responsible for it, contact them and try to locate the package. If you are not in a hurry for the AP I advice you to take this route. If you are in a hurry I suggest you send a second package in Express mail. Good luck with you AP.
First off priority mail could take about 5 days to reach and sounds like you are right about there now. Second, if you sent via priority mail with delivery confirmation the post office is responsible for it, contact them and try to locate the package. If you are not in a hurry for the AP I advice you to take this route. If you are in a hurry I suggest you send a second package in Express mail. Good luck with you AP.
more...
ChalapathiChitturi
11-01 04:22 AM
When I filed my 485, I gave My company address in all the applications. My company is in Washington State.
But I am actually working in California from past 7 years. The only place that I specified my current california address is in G325 (485 supporting document).
Also I move within california after filing 485.
Because I gave my company address in all the 485 applications, I did not even change my address in any of the applications. I only filed AR11 online for the address change. Advantage with online is, you will get a confirmation number.
That is what my company recomended me.
I got my EAD and all other receipts to the company address.
Waiting for AP and FP mails.
I also heard from my company that, my company will receive the finger print notice but the appointment office will be in california.
Hope this helps you.
But I am actually working in California from past 7 years. The only place that I specified my current california address is in G325 (485 supporting document).
Also I move within california after filing 485.
Because I gave my company address in all the 485 applications, I did not even change my address in any of the applications. I only filed AR11 online for the address change. Advantage with online is, you will get a confirmation number.
That is what my company recomended me.
I got my EAD and all other receipts to the company address.
Waiting for AP and FP mails.
I also heard from my company that, my company will receive the finger print notice but the appointment office will be in california.
Hope this helps you.
2010 Quebec Provincial Flag and
vijay1974
07-29 06:06 PM
I think they should change the title on their page to How may I harass you? :)
more...
krishna_brc
05-05 08:54 AM
Yes, we don't need original I-485 receipt notice to travel.
I traveled without original I-485.
see below for USCIS note on this
----
[Federal Register: November 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 211)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61791-61793]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no07-1]
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
__________________________________________________ ____________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
8 CFR Part 245
[CIS No. 2420-07; Docket No. USCIS-2007-0047]
RIN 1615-AB62
Removal of Receipt Requirement for Certain H and L Adjustment
Applicants Returning From a Trip Outside the United States
AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule removes the requirement that certain H and L
nonimmigrants returning to the United States following a trip abroad
must present a receipt notice for their adjustment of status
applications to avoid having such applications deemed abandoned. The
purpose of this narrow change is to remove an unnecessary documentation
requirement from the regulations that the Department of Homeland
Security has determined causes an undue burden on H and L
nonimmigrants.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective November 1, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Vernon, Regulations and Product
Management Division, Domestic Operations, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue, Room 2034, Washington, DC 20529, telephone (202) 272-8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Travel outside the United States for an alien who has filed Form I-
485, ``Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status,''
to obtain lawful permanent resident status under section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1255, may adversely
affect that application unless the alien takes certain steps before the
trip. Most applicants must obtain permission from U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) to travel prior to the trip, a process
referred to as ``advance parole.'' See 8 CFR 212.5 (c) and (f). For
these applicants, departing the United States without advance parole
while their adjustment of status applications are pending results in
automatic abandonment of the applications and constitutes grounds for
denial. 8 CFR 245.2(a)(4)(ii)(A) & (B).
III. Rulemaking Requirements
DHS finds that this rule relates to internal agency management,
procedure, and practice and therefore is exempt from the public comment
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A). This rule does not alter substantive criteria by which USCIS
will approve or deny applications or determine eligibility for any
immigration benefit. Instead, this rule relieves a document
presentation requirement for certain applicants for immigration
benefits. Specifically, this rule removes the requirement that H-1/H-4
and L-1/L-2 nonimmigrants present a Form I-797 receipt notice for their
adjustment of status applications upon readmission to the United States
after a trip abroad in order to avoid having their applications
abandoned. This document presentation requirement is unnecessary since
it concerns information that is already available to DHS. This final
rule merely eliminates an unnecessary burden on these arriving aliens
and streamlines agency management of its processes. As a result, DHS is
not required to provide the public with an opportunity to submit
comments on the subject matter of this rule.
Moreover, DHS finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)
to make the rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register
without prior notice and public comment on the grounds that delaying
implementation of this rule to allow for public comment would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. As a result of
USCIS's July 17, 2007, announcement that it would accept employment-
based Forms I-485 filed by aliens whose priority dates are current
under Department of State Visa Bulletin No. 107, USCIS received an
unprecedented volume of employment-based applications for adjustment of
status, including those filed by H and L nonimmigrants. Because of the
recent surge in such filings, it will take several weeks for USCIS to
enter the necessary data and issue Form I-797 receipt notices for
employment-based adjustment of status applications. Therefore, it is
important for this rule to take effect as soon as possible to avoid
undue hardship on applicants who may need travel outside the United
States prior to receiving the receipt notice.
In addition, no substantive rights or obligations of the affected
public are changed by this rule. DHS believes the public will welcome
this change. The public needs no time to conform its conduct so as to
avoid violation of these regulations because the rule relieves a
requirement of the existing regulations. Further, this rule will have
no adverse impact on DHS' adjudicatory responsibilities or ability to
track the foreign travel of affected persons since DHS already records
the admission of all nonimigrants. For these reasons, this rule is
effective immediately under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3).
This rule relates to internal agency management, and, therefore, is
exempt from the provisions of Executive Order Nos. 12630, 12988, 13045,
13132, 13175, 13211, and 13272. This rule is not considered by DHS to
be a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Therefore, it has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, this
action is not a proposed rule requiring an initial or final regulatory
flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq. In addition, this rule is not subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. Ch. 17A, 25,
or the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3501, note.
Finally, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-
13, all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any reporting requirements
inherent in a rule. This rule does not affect any information
collections, reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 245
Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, part 245 of chapter 1 of title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 245--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR
PERMANENT RESIDENCE
1. The authority citation for part 245 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1255; sec. 202, Pub. L.
105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193; sec. 902, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat.
2681; 8 CFR part 2.
2. Section 245.2 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(C) as
follows:
Sec. 245.2 Application.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The travel outside of the United States by an applicant for
adjustment of status who is not under exclusion, deportation, or
removal proceeding and who is in lawful H-1 or L-1 status shall not be
deemed an abandonment of the application if, upon returning to this
country, the alien remains eligible for H or L status, is coming to
resume employment with the same employer for whom he or she had
previously been authorized to work as an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant, and,
is in possession of a valid H or L visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful H-4 or L-2 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if the spouse or parent of such alien through whom the
H-4 or L-2 status was obtained is maintaining H-1 or L-1 status and the
alien remains otherwise eligible for H-4 or L-2 status, and, the alien
is in possession of a valid H-4 or L-2 visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status,
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful K-3 or K-4 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if, upon returning to this country, the alien is in
possession of a valid K-3 or K-4 visa and remains eligible for K-3 or
K-4 status.
Dated: October 15, 2007.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21506 Filed 10-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
I traveled without original I-485.
see below for USCIS note on this
----
[Federal Register: November 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 211)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61791-61793]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no07-1]
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
__________________________________________________ ____________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
8 CFR Part 245
[CIS No. 2420-07; Docket No. USCIS-2007-0047]
RIN 1615-AB62
Removal of Receipt Requirement for Certain H and L Adjustment
Applicants Returning From a Trip Outside the United States
AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule removes the requirement that certain H and L
nonimmigrants returning to the United States following a trip abroad
must present a receipt notice for their adjustment of status
applications to avoid having such applications deemed abandoned. The
purpose of this narrow change is to remove an unnecessary documentation
requirement from the regulations that the Department of Homeland
Security has determined causes an undue burden on H and L
nonimmigrants.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective November 1, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Vernon, Regulations and Product
Management Division, Domestic Operations, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue, Room 2034, Washington, DC 20529, telephone (202) 272-8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Travel outside the United States for an alien who has filed Form I-
485, ``Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status,''
to obtain lawful permanent resident status under section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1255, may adversely
affect that application unless the alien takes certain steps before the
trip. Most applicants must obtain permission from U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) to travel prior to the trip, a process
referred to as ``advance parole.'' See 8 CFR 212.5 (c) and (f). For
these applicants, departing the United States without advance parole
while their adjustment of status applications are pending results in
automatic abandonment of the applications and constitutes grounds for
denial. 8 CFR 245.2(a)(4)(ii)(A) & (B).
III. Rulemaking Requirements
DHS finds that this rule relates to internal agency management,
procedure, and practice and therefore is exempt from the public comment
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A). This rule does not alter substantive criteria by which USCIS
will approve or deny applications or determine eligibility for any
immigration benefit. Instead, this rule relieves a document
presentation requirement for certain applicants for immigration
benefits. Specifically, this rule removes the requirement that H-1/H-4
and L-1/L-2 nonimmigrants present a Form I-797 receipt notice for their
adjustment of status applications upon readmission to the United States
after a trip abroad in order to avoid having their applications
abandoned. This document presentation requirement is unnecessary since
it concerns information that is already available to DHS. This final
rule merely eliminates an unnecessary burden on these arriving aliens
and streamlines agency management of its processes. As a result, DHS is
not required to provide the public with an opportunity to submit
comments on the subject matter of this rule.
Moreover, DHS finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)
to make the rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register
without prior notice and public comment on the grounds that delaying
implementation of this rule to allow for public comment would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. As a result of
USCIS's July 17, 2007, announcement that it would accept employment-
based Forms I-485 filed by aliens whose priority dates are current
under Department of State Visa Bulletin No. 107, USCIS received an
unprecedented volume of employment-based applications for adjustment of
status, including those filed by H and L nonimmigrants. Because of the
recent surge in such filings, it will take several weeks for USCIS to
enter the necessary data and issue Form I-797 receipt notices for
employment-based adjustment of status applications. Therefore, it is
important for this rule to take effect as soon as possible to avoid
undue hardship on applicants who may need travel outside the United
States prior to receiving the receipt notice.
In addition, no substantive rights or obligations of the affected
public are changed by this rule. DHS believes the public will welcome
this change. The public needs no time to conform its conduct so as to
avoid violation of these regulations because the rule relieves a
requirement of the existing regulations. Further, this rule will have
no adverse impact on DHS' adjudicatory responsibilities or ability to
track the foreign travel of affected persons since DHS already records
the admission of all nonimigrants. For these reasons, this rule is
effective immediately under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3).
This rule relates to internal agency management, and, therefore, is
exempt from the provisions of Executive Order Nos. 12630, 12988, 13045,
13132, 13175, 13211, and 13272. This rule is not considered by DHS to
be a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Therefore, it has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, this
action is not a proposed rule requiring an initial or final regulatory
flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq. In addition, this rule is not subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. Ch. 17A, 25,
or the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3501, note.
Finally, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-
13, all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any reporting requirements
inherent in a rule. This rule does not affect any information
collections, reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 245
Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, part 245 of chapter 1 of title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 245--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR
PERMANENT RESIDENCE
1. The authority citation for part 245 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1255; sec. 202, Pub. L.
105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193; sec. 902, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat.
2681; 8 CFR part 2.
2. Section 245.2 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(C) as
follows:
Sec. 245.2 Application.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The travel outside of the United States by an applicant for
adjustment of status who is not under exclusion, deportation, or
removal proceeding and who is in lawful H-1 or L-1 status shall not be
deemed an abandonment of the application if, upon returning to this
country, the alien remains eligible for H or L status, is coming to
resume employment with the same employer for whom he or she had
previously been authorized to work as an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant, and,
is in possession of a valid H or L visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful H-4 or L-2 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if the spouse or parent of such alien through whom the
H-4 or L-2 status was obtained is maintaining H-1 or L-1 status and the
alien remains otherwise eligible for H-4 or L-2 status, and, the alien
is in possession of a valid H-4 or L-2 visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status,
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful K-3 or K-4 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if, upon returning to this country, the alien is in
possession of a valid K-3 or K-4 visa and remains eligible for K-3 or
K-4 status.
Dated: October 15, 2007.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21506 Filed 10-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
hair Exclusive to Canada#39;s Flag
h1techSlave
01-08 03:05 PM
from an old article: http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/H1BSummary.pdf?popup=false
Here is an outline of my proposal:
� To be eligible to an H-1B, the employer would be required to have not have laid off Americans
in similar jobs within the last 6 months, and not employ H-1Bs in more than 15% of its technical
workforce.
� An employer who wishes to hire an H-1B would be required to advertise the job on a central Dept. of
Labor (DOL) Web page for 30 days. If the employer did not hire an American during this period, the
employer would have automatic permission to hire the H-1B.
� The wage paid to an H-1B would be required to be at least the national median for all workers in the
field, including those with all levels of experience.
� After hiring the H-1B, the employer would update the entry in the database, stating the qualifications
of the H-1B who was hired.33
� The visa would be valid for 3 years. During this time, the worker could move from employer to
employer at will, providing that each new employer goes through the 30-day ad procedure on the
DOL database.
� If the worker were to stay employed in the tech field for all but 60 days during the 3-year period, the
worker would be deemed as having proved his/her value to the economy, and would automatically be
granted permanent-resident (i.e. green card) status.
� If on the other hand, the worker were to become unemployed for more than 60 days, he/she would be
required to leave the country within 15 days.
Here is an outline of my proposal:
� To be eligible to an H-1B, the employer would be required to have not have laid off Americans
in similar jobs within the last 6 months, and not employ H-1Bs in more than 15% of its technical
workforce.
� An employer who wishes to hire an H-1B would be required to advertise the job on a central Dept. of
Labor (DOL) Web page for 30 days. If the employer did not hire an American during this period, the
employer would have automatic permission to hire the H-1B.
� The wage paid to an H-1B would be required to be at least the national median for all workers in the
field, including those with all levels of experience.
� After hiring the H-1B, the employer would update the entry in the database, stating the qualifications
of the H-1B who was hired.33
� The visa would be valid for 3 years. During this time, the worker could move from employer to
employer at will, providing that each new employer goes through the 30-day ad procedure on the
DOL database.
� If the worker were to stay employed in the tech field for all but 60 days during the 3-year period, the
worker would be deemed as having proved his/her value to the economy, and would automatically be
granted permanent-resident (i.e. green card) status.
� If on the other hand, the worker were to become unemployed for more than 60 days, he/she would be
required to leave the country within 15 days.
more...
softwareguy
07-05 12:14 PM
Pick your battles!!
Battle ONE:
Make USCIS do or prove otherwise that what they publish and say is useless. So why publish at all.
BENEFITS:
1. My wife can work.
2. My son can get scholarships in college.
3. I can change jobs - so what if it is similar.
Battle TWO:
When I sink in Glory of winning battle #1 - I would definitely participate in getting Visa # increased - The longer and more difficult of the TWO Battles.
BTW - Let me know if battle # 2 is easier.
I do not know why is everyone facing "Attention Deficit Disorder".
Battle ONE:
Make USCIS do or prove otherwise that what they publish and say is useless. So why publish at all.
BENEFITS:
1. My wife can work.
2. My son can get scholarships in college.
3. I can change jobs - so what if it is similar.
Battle TWO:
When I sink in Glory of winning battle #1 - I would definitely participate in getting Visa # increased - The longer and more difficult of the TWO Battles.
BTW - Let me know if battle # 2 is easier.
I do not know why is everyone facing "Attention Deficit Disorder".
hot provincial flags of canada.
MArch172008
05-23 03:32 PM
I am on H1 since 2005 and renewed last year and it is valid till april 2010.
Last year i joined directly to the client and they are processing my GC.
When they hired me they gave me list of projects and future plans for more then 5 years but this work is not IT driven and manufacutring in having late back attitude so my fear is if there are not projects in the future i may loose the job then at that point i will have very little time to get my labour approves abd re start the process...
So as back up i want to have a labour approve based on future employment and if possible have 140 processed.
guide me if this is not the correct thing to do...
regards
Last year i joined directly to the client and they are processing my GC.
When they hired me they gave me list of projects and future plans for more then 5 years but this work is not IT driven and manufacutring in having late back attitude so my fear is if there are not projects in the future i may loose the job then at that point i will have very little time to get my labour approves abd re start the process...
So as back up i want to have a labour approve based on future employment and if possible have 140 processed.
guide me if this is not the correct thing to do...
regards
more...
house Canadian Flag and Houses near
Hinglish
03-03 11:24 AM
AGI = American Greencard for Indians
tattoo provincial flags.
rameshms
08-05 08:37 PM
I have not tried Dish IP TV. If you are only looking at Indian programming, you may want to look at WatchIndia (dot) TV. I must point out that the quality was not great (especially while viewing on a large screen, it was good enough a Dual Core laptop). Recently they have introduced a STB option. I am guessing this maybe good. Anyway, they have a 15 day trial, which you can check out.
This could be one of your options, as you have a limitation of not availing of a satellite.
This could be one of your options, as you have a limitation of not availing of a satellite.
more...
pictures Provincial Flag Set (14 flags)
vijse
12-19 08:42 PM
For the sake of others who may search this forum in future, could you tell how you got it corrected? Thanks!
I went to a CPB defferred inspection site which was the one closest to where I live ,with my pasasport ,I-94 and my H1 petition . So the officer clearly saw it was an error and gave me a new I-94 .
I went to a CPB defferred inspection site which was the one closest to where I live ,with my pasasport ,I-94 and my H1 petition . So the officer clearly saw it was an error and gave me a new I-94 .
dresses Flash Canada Provincial
bindas74
05-15 08:38 AM
Hi Gurus,
I have efiled for my wife's EAD/AP renewal. When I finally submitted, the total payment asked was only $645( 340 for EAD and 305 for AP). But, there is a note stating the following:
"The biometric fee is $80 for applicants ages 14 through 79 who request a Refugee Travel Document or Re-Entry Permit, unless the applicant resides outside the United States at the time of filing their form."
How am I supposed to send this? I was not asked to pay this amount during my efiling of the AP/EAD concurrent filing.
How am I supposed to send this? Can I send it as a separate check for $80 only for the biometric fee( because I had already paid for the EAD/AP using my credit card)
Please advise.
Also, during the AP filing, I got this:
"On a separate piece of paper, please explain how you would qualify for an Advance Parole and what circumstances warrant issuance of Advance Parole. Include copies of any documents you wish considered. (See instructions.) "
What an I supposed write in the document that I am going to send to USCIS?
Please advise.
Thanks in advance,
I have efiled for my wife's EAD/AP renewal. When I finally submitted, the total payment asked was only $645( 340 for EAD and 305 for AP). But, there is a note stating the following:
"The biometric fee is $80 for applicants ages 14 through 79 who request a Refugee Travel Document or Re-Entry Permit, unless the applicant resides outside the United States at the time of filing their form."
How am I supposed to send this? I was not asked to pay this amount during my efiling of the AP/EAD concurrent filing.
How am I supposed to send this? Can I send it as a separate check for $80 only for the biometric fee( because I had already paid for the EAD/AP using my credit card)
Please advise.
Also, during the AP filing, I got this:
"On a separate piece of paper, please explain how you would qualify for an Advance Parole and what circumstances warrant issuance of Advance Parole. Include copies of any documents you wish considered. (See instructions.) "
What an I supposed write in the document that I am going to send to USCIS?
Please advise.
Thanks in advance,
more...
makeup provincial flags of canada.
nagrajram
12-17 11:23 AM
Now the biggest hurdle of Apr 30, 2001 is crossed. I am sure that not many people has filed between Sep 2001 and February 2002. Also if you look into PD for China and Phillipines, the dates moved very fast after June 2001. Lot of people applied in late 2002 and early 2003. My guess would be that it will take about 3 to 4 years to clear all the backlogs of 2003. For 2004 it may be over 5 years.
girlfriend provincial flags of canada.
Nagireddi
08-10 11:46 AM
Please stop this insanity and concentrate on good work.
hairstyles provincial flags of canada.
chtting2me
01-02 07:32 PM
Still waiting for FP. Filled on 19th July @TSC
bmoni
08-21 10:34 PM
Thanks bushman06.
kevinkris
08-06 01:57 PM
Is it a big blow for desi consulting firms??
US raises H-1B, L1 visa fee by $2000
Washington: The US Senate today approved a substantial increase in application fees for H-1B and L1 visas, most sought after by Indian IT professionals to fund a $ 600 million emergency package to improve security along the porous Mexican border.
The proposed massive increase in H-1B and L1 visa application fee would primarily affect the top Indian IT companies who rely majorly on these categories of visas to continue with their work in the US. The Senate measure increases the visa fee to $ 2,000 per application on those companies that have less than 50 percent of their employees as American citizens.
"I prefer our source, which is from these companies which are not, as I say they are companies whose whole purpose is to bring people in on H-1B and the vast majority of them from other countries who go back to the other countries. That is a better funding source," Senator Charles Schumer from New York said in his remarks on the Senate floor.
Schumer along with his other democratic colleagues including Senator Claire McCaskill has introduced the legislation in this regard, which was passed by unanimous consent. During the debate, however, Senator John McCain wanted to fund the security along the Mexican border with the stimulus money, which was turned down by Schumer.
"The bottom line is this. I like the H-1B programme, and I think it does a lot of good for a lot of American companies. In fact, in the immigration proposal I made, along with Senator Reid and Senator Menendez, as well as the outline with Senator Graham, we expand H-1B in a variety of ways," Schumer argued.
"There is a part of H-1B that is abused, and it is by companies that are not American companies or even companies that are making something. Rather, they are companies that take foreign folks, bring them here, and then they stay here for a few years, learn their expertise, and go back. We think we should increase the fees when they do that," the Senator said.
Rejecting McCain's proposal to get the funding from the stimulus money, Schumer said: "I hope, even though I cannot accept these amendments, that maybe we could come together on something that we could bring back in September because I do believe we have to secure the border."
Schumer said: "Even in the comprehensive proposal that we made, we said we have to secure the border and do other things as well. It is my belief that securing the border alone will not solve our immigration problems; that until we have comprehensive reform, particularly in making sure employers do not hire illegal immigrants which they now do, even though they do not know they are illegal immigrants because documents are so easily forged, that we have to do comprehensive. But we should do the border. To say we have to do comprehensive does not gainsay that we have to work on theborder and work on it quickly and soon."
It is not clear yet, if this increase would also apply only to those firms that are also H-1B-dependent.
US raises H-1B, L1 visa fee by $2000
Washington: The US Senate today approved a substantial increase in application fees for H-1B and L1 visas, most sought after by Indian IT professionals to fund a $ 600 million emergency package to improve security along the porous Mexican border.
The proposed massive increase in H-1B and L1 visa application fee would primarily affect the top Indian IT companies who rely majorly on these categories of visas to continue with their work in the US. The Senate measure increases the visa fee to $ 2,000 per application on those companies that have less than 50 percent of their employees as American citizens.
"I prefer our source, which is from these companies which are not, as I say they are companies whose whole purpose is to bring people in on H-1B and the vast majority of them from other countries who go back to the other countries. That is a better funding source," Senator Charles Schumer from New York said in his remarks on the Senate floor.
Schumer along with his other democratic colleagues including Senator Claire McCaskill has introduced the legislation in this regard, which was passed by unanimous consent. During the debate, however, Senator John McCain wanted to fund the security along the Mexican border with the stimulus money, which was turned down by Schumer.
"The bottom line is this. I like the H-1B programme, and I think it does a lot of good for a lot of American companies. In fact, in the immigration proposal I made, along with Senator Reid and Senator Menendez, as well as the outline with Senator Graham, we expand H-1B in a variety of ways," Schumer argued.
"There is a part of H-1B that is abused, and it is by companies that are not American companies or even companies that are making something. Rather, they are companies that take foreign folks, bring them here, and then they stay here for a few years, learn their expertise, and go back. We think we should increase the fees when they do that," the Senator said.
Rejecting McCain's proposal to get the funding from the stimulus money, Schumer said: "I hope, even though I cannot accept these amendments, that maybe we could come together on something that we could bring back in September because I do believe we have to secure the border."
Schumer said: "Even in the comprehensive proposal that we made, we said we have to secure the border and do other things as well. It is my belief that securing the border alone will not solve our immigration problems; that until we have comprehensive reform, particularly in making sure employers do not hire illegal immigrants which they now do, even though they do not know they are illegal immigrants because documents are so easily forged, that we have to do comprehensive. But we should do the border. To say we have to do comprehensive does not gainsay that we have to work on theborder and work on it quickly and soon."
It is not clear yet, if this increase would also apply only to those firms that are also H-1B-dependent.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét