eb_retrogession
01-06 09:20 AM
This site should have some provision so that we can send multiple mails to different people who are suffering from retrogression
apnair,
Your suggestion has been submitted to the webmaster and it is on his list of To-Do's. It will be implemented shortly.
Thank You.
apnair,
Your suggestion has been submitted to the webmaster and it is on his list of To-Do's. It will be implemented shortly.
Thank You.
wallpaper lime green wallpaper
H1B-GC
09-23 04:09 PM
This is probably as close information that we can get from horses mouth(USCIS). Just hope its true.
trueguy
01-24 03:08 PM
Recently I travelled by Jet Airways and I had very good experience. They provide world class service even for Domestic flights and their international flights are just awesome. Brand new aircraft with bigger tv screen and they fly ontime. Also, no transit visa required at Brussels so no hassle for TV.
The only drawback of this is that you are not allowed to carry any liquid (including liquor) from US. However, you can buy as much as you want at Brussels airport and the prices are same as in US.
Thanks.
The only drawback of this is that you are not allowed to carry any liquid (including liquor) from US. However, you can buy as much as you want at Brussels airport and the prices are same as in US.
Thanks.
2011 house Lime green wallpaper
jayleno
11-07 07:55 PM
I just got a response back from TSC. They attached my letter, the envolope I sent the letter in and a response.
The response is a standard one...."Thank you for your recent enquiry to the TSC.....contact NCSC...blah blah...blah". No mention of AC-21, 140 etc. I dont know what to make of it. Same for my wife's letter.
Well...atleast we know it reached them :).
The response is a standard one...."Thank you for your recent enquiry to the TSC.....contact NCSC...blah blah...blah". No mention of AC-21, 140 etc. I dont know what to make of it. Same for my wife's letter.
Well...atleast we know it reached them :).
more...
chanduv23
03-26 06:26 AM
I am not aware of anything that says that you need to bring this up initially in your job search. I personally wouldn't put it in my CV.
Apply for a job, as you would if you had a green card (keeping within the AC21 parameters.) If the question of visa sponsorship comes up then you can say you do not need it. I am not sure why people bring this up with their prospective employers. If you have employment authorisation, you have it, it is not employer specific, it is not site specific, it is quite broad in its scope. The employer
has to complete the I-9 like for anyone else. Any issues would be with the USCIS at the time of adjudication and that would be if AC21 rules are broken.
I think that sometimes we project our own fears onto employers and make issues when none exist. I've seen the same sort of doubts expressed about AP travel.
Folks need to grow more confident generally. For many their immigrant petitions 140s have been approved and their 485s have been pending for quite a while. They give you these interim benefits for a reason, so you can use them!
Not sure if you are in the IT field, but a reqruiter/HR is the first interfacing person. No matter what, these are the first questions you can expect when a reqruiter calls you.
dice.com, monster.com etc... wants you to select from a dropdown what your status is and in most cases, employers/reqruiters filter reesumes based on that criteria.
Apply for a job, as you would if you had a green card (keeping within the AC21 parameters.) If the question of visa sponsorship comes up then you can say you do not need it. I am not sure why people bring this up with their prospective employers. If you have employment authorisation, you have it, it is not employer specific, it is not site specific, it is quite broad in its scope. The employer
has to complete the I-9 like for anyone else. Any issues would be with the USCIS at the time of adjudication and that would be if AC21 rules are broken.
I think that sometimes we project our own fears onto employers and make issues when none exist. I've seen the same sort of doubts expressed about AP travel.
Folks need to grow more confident generally. For many their immigrant petitions 140s have been approved and their 485s have been pending for quite a while. They give you these interim benefits for a reason, so you can use them!
Not sure if you are in the IT field, but a reqruiter/HR is the first interfacing person. No matter what, these are the first questions you can expect when a reqruiter calls you.
dice.com, monster.com etc... wants you to select from a dropdown what your status is and in most cases, employers/reqruiters filter reesumes based on that criteria.
eb_retrogession
01-19 12:52 PM
Is this forum only for people from IIT who are stuck in labor... ...wonder why would that be the case.
No its not; Its for everyone!!
That particular post was an one-off request. Pls feel free to use the forum. Its for one and all.
No its not; Its for everyone!!
That particular post was an one-off request. Pls feel free to use the forum. Its for one and all.
more...
chanduv23
11-12 12:25 PM
got a reply from ombudsman....iam sure others got this too...
Thank you for your recent correspondence to the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (CIS Ombudsman).
We greatly appreciate your comments regarding issues concerning AC21 processing at the Service Centers. As we have received several inquiries such as yours, we are currently discussing these issues with USCIS and reviewing their policies and procedures regarding these petitions.
If you have evidence of a specific I-485 case that you feel was erroneously denied due to USCIS not adhering to AC21 guidelines, we kindly ask that you please forward us a copy of your denial notice or provide further detail as to the reasons for the immediate denial.
Please submit information via email to cisombudsman@dhs.gov with the subject AC21 Evidence of Immediate Denial. In addition, for protection of privacy we ask that you please omit any personally identifiable information such as names, a-numbers, case numbers, etc.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Please work with pd_recapturing on this. He is communicating with folks whose 485 has been denied erroneously and those who are willing to give their details.
Thank you for your recent correspondence to the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (CIS Ombudsman).
We greatly appreciate your comments regarding issues concerning AC21 processing at the Service Centers. As we have received several inquiries such as yours, we are currently discussing these issues with USCIS and reviewing their policies and procedures regarding these petitions.
If you have evidence of a specific I-485 case that you feel was erroneously denied due to USCIS not adhering to AC21 guidelines, we kindly ask that you please forward us a copy of your denial notice or provide further detail as to the reasons for the immediate denial.
Please submit information via email to cisombudsman@dhs.gov with the subject AC21 Evidence of Immediate Denial. In addition, for protection of privacy we ask that you please omit any personally identifiable information such as names, a-numbers, case numbers, etc.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Please work with pd_recapturing on this. He is communicating with folks whose 485 has been denied erroneously and those who are willing to give their details.
2010 Lime Green Snake iPad
gottagc
05-18 01:07 PM
From http://www.immigration-law.com/
05/17/2007: USCIS Terminates 05/18/2007 PPS for Labor Certification Substitution I-140 Petitions
USCIS announced today that beginning on Friday, May 18, 2007, it will terminate Premium Processing Service for Form I-140 petitions that request labor certification substitution. USCIS anticipates a substantial increase in the number of petitioning employers that will file Form I-140 petitions requesting Premium Processing Service and seeking labor certification substitution prior to July 16, 2007. The volume of such petitions filed requesting Premium Process Service is expected to exceed USCIS� capacity to provide the Premium Process Service according to the program guidelines. For the announcement, please click here.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/PPSPermRule051707.pdf
05/17/2007: USCIS Terminates 05/18/2007 PPS for Labor Certification Substitution I-140 Petitions
USCIS announced today that beginning on Friday, May 18, 2007, it will terminate Premium Processing Service for Form I-140 petitions that request labor certification substitution. USCIS anticipates a substantial increase in the number of petitioning employers that will file Form I-140 petitions requesting Premium Processing Service and seeking labor certification substitution prior to July 16, 2007. The volume of such petitions filed requesting Premium Process Service is expected to exceed USCIS� capacity to provide the Premium Process Service according to the program guidelines. For the announcement, please click here.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/PPSPermRule051707.pdf
more...
DannyBoy
02-21 09:22 PM
Not so. There are no quota caps for spouses of US citizens, hence no retrogression.
Thanks, but could i still file for a concurrent AOS even though i am currently in the country on a AP?
Thanks, but could i still file for a concurrent AOS even though i am currently in the country on a AP?
hair Desktop Wallpaper. Nopi
TheNewTiger
04-07 10:15 AM
I guess, we need to hire, one octopus for every months' prediction. That will be cheaper, instead of we put our brain in predictions.
more...
chandrajp
04-20 02:12 PM
I am getting ready to file I-485. Is it mandatory to apply I-131(EAD) and I-765 (AP)? I got 3yr extension which is valid till 2009 and i am not planning to use EAD anytime soon.
What if i just apply for I-485 in the beginning and apply for EAD or AP whenever there's need? Please let me know.
Thanks
You can apply EAD/AP whenever you want to, provided you have filed I485. It need not be exactly at the time the I485 is filed.
What if i just apply for I-485 in the beginning and apply for EAD or AP whenever there's need? Please let me know.
Thanks
You can apply EAD/AP whenever you want to, provided you have filed I485. It need not be exactly at the time the I485 is filed.
hot lime-green-bedroom-colors-
chintu25
09-09 04:53 PM
:mad:
bUMP
bUMP
more...
house 1280×960 Lime Green L.png
amitjoey
07-11 12:32 PM
http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070711/NEWS/707110343/1001
tattoo Lime Green – Front Angle
CADude
11-06 03:40 PM
Wow.. Applicants are waiting since 2002 and Govt Agency know it but don't do anything. Shame on you FBI NNCP :mad:
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
more...
pictures lime-green-olive-wallpaper-
Saralayar
01-09 01:43 PM
Core IV can consolidate the valueable points like this for the argument.
There is a rumor that Obama is considering Citizenship for people who have paid Income Tax for a certain period. Core is it possible to dig more on this and find if it is just a rumor?
There is a rumor that Obama is considering Citizenship for people who have paid Income Tax for a certain period. Core is it possible to dig more on this and find if it is just a rumor?
dresses A large lime green lily flower
tempy
09-09 08:31 AM
That is not an RFE. It's a welcome notice, which is expected.
Thank you.
Thank you.
more...
makeup Lime Green Snake iPad
Edison99
09-24 11:40 AM
Thanks BharatPremi for your great analysis and honored to give one green today! :)
girlfriend /lime-green-wallpaper-ipod
GC08
06-29 08:16 PM
This does not make sence at all. Why the USCIS would make visa number current then retrogress again? I do not think they make all visa current and not expect a flood of applications. .
I do not thisn that the USCIS did not plan for this. This does not make sense?Did this ever happen before?
There is no sense from those buarocrats because they are incompetent and purely stupid. You are right, USCIS did not plan for this... simply because they never had a plan! They have no idea what damage they can cause to average, hard-working people.
I do not thisn that the USCIS did not plan for this. This does not make sense?Did this ever happen before?
There is no sense from those buarocrats because they are incompetent and purely stupid. You are right, USCIS did not plan for this... simply because they never had a plan! They have no idea what damage they can cause to average, hard-working people.
hairstyles Hot pink lime green cute
RDB
11-25 12:38 PM
Btw, who told you that guys like punjabi and others overbid or bought a house that they cannot afford? They could and still can afford these houses i.e. the monthly mortgage payments; the only thing they cannot do in the current market is to sell it (even at the price at which they bough i.e. break even) and that is why they are stuck with it if/when they decide to move to another city/job - so no point blaming these guys. If you want to blame somebody, blame the banks who appraised the same house at 500k 2 years back which they are appraising at 400k today, there in lies the problem.
People like you and boreal are doing much better because you decided that a 2 bed room house for rent is what you can afford because the prices shot up by guys like punjabi who wanted to make money and overbid on an house they cannot afford. Otherwise guys like you and many others would have bought house at a resonable price.
Don't you see what is happening? They live a rich man's life buying house that they cannot afford and then they foreclose with banks taking the hit. The banks in turn gets money from Governement, which they tax on people like you and many others who are renting, so that the guys like pubjabi are entitled to big house and bailouts. This is sick. Where is my bail out money. I want my rent to be subsidized too. I think boreal 's anger is real.
People like you and boreal are doing much better because you decided that a 2 bed room house for rent is what you can afford because the prices shot up by guys like punjabi who wanted to make money and overbid on an house they cannot afford. Otherwise guys like you and many others would have bought house at a resonable price.
Don't you see what is happening? They live a rich man's life buying house that they cannot afford and then they foreclose with banks taking the hit. The banks in turn gets money from Governement, which they tax on people like you and many others who are renting, so that the guys like pubjabi are entitled to big house and bailouts. This is sick. Where is my bail out money. I want my rent to be subsidized too. I think boreal 's anger is real.
DSLStart
09-25 04:18 PM
Just a quick question for current Vonage users.
Currently I use Phone Power (VOIP, almost same as Vonage). They give me one nice feature called Remote Click 2 call. What it does is, if I am in office (where there is no long distance calling allowed), I login into my phonepower.com account and click on Remote Click2Call. This asks me to enter the number where I am at, and the destination number. So I get a call at my office phone and it connects me to the destination number. And there is no charge for this call.
Does Vonage offer this kind of feature? and can we make calls to India (under their India unlimited plan) using this feature?
Thanks.
Currently I use Phone Power (VOIP, almost same as Vonage). They give me one nice feature called Remote Click 2 call. What it does is, if I am in office (where there is no long distance calling allowed), I login into my phonepower.com account and click on Remote Click2Call. This asks me to enter the number where I am at, and the destination number. So I get a call at my office phone and it connects me to the destination number. And there is no charge for this call.
Does Vonage offer this kind of feature? and can we make calls to India (under their India unlimited plan) using this feature?
Thanks.
CADude
10-09 12:08 PM
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1171038701035.shtm
Friday, October 12 - USCIS Receipting Delay - How Does This Affect You? 2:30-3:30 p.m. EDT
How Is It Working For You? The CIS Ombudsman’s Community Call-In Teleconference Series
How to Participate
To participate in these calls, please RSVP to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov specifying which call you would like to join. Participants will receive a return email with the call-in information.
If you are unable to participate in these calls, please visit our website at www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman for upcoming teleconference dates. Also, if you have a topic of interest for a future call, please send it to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov.
We appreciate your participation in this pilot program.
Friday, October 12 - USCIS Receipting Delay - How Does This Affect You? 2:30-3:30 p.m. EDT
How Is It Working For You? The CIS Ombudsman’s Community Call-In Teleconference Series
How to Participate
To participate in these calls, please RSVP to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov specifying which call you would like to join. Participants will receive a return email with the call-in information.
If you are unable to participate in these calls, please visit our website at www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman for upcoming teleconference dates. Also, if you have a topic of interest for a future call, please send it to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov.
We appreciate your participation in this pilot program.
